Enhanced Oil Recovery Field Experiences in Carbonate Reservoirs in

the United States

Eduardo Manrique*, Mariano Gurfinkel, Viviana Muci
Center for Energy and Technology of the Americas (CETA)
Florida International University, Fl, United States
http://ceta.fiu.edu

A considerable portion of the worlds hydrocarbon endowment, and even more so if resources
from the Middle East are excluded, are in carbonate reservoirs. Carbonate reservoirs may exhibit
low porosity and may be fractured. These two characteristics in addition to oil-to-mixed wet
rock properties usually results in low recovery. When enhanced oil recovery (EOR) strategies
are pursued, the injected fluids will likely flow be through the fracture network, bypassing oil in
the rock matrix. The high permeability in the fracture network and its low equivalent porous
volume result in early breakthrough of the injected fluids. Infill drilling programs and well
conformance strategies, mostly gas and water shutoff, have been effectively used to mitigate the
early breakthrough and increase oil recovery. However, in most cases 40 to 50% of the original
oil in place (OOIP) is not produced.
A large number of EOR field projects in carbonate reservoirs have been reported in the literature
since the early 70s. The field projects showed the technological capability to increase oil
recovery. This increase in oil recovery would directly result in additional reserves extending the
productive life of the different assets. However, the technical results were not matched by their
economic viability. In some cases high upfront investments created insurmountable barriers for
the technologys application. In other cases, the high marginal costs eliminated all benefits from
the increased recovery. The latter is especially true for EOR processes based on chemical and
thermal methods. Over the last three decades, many improvements have reduced the cost per
incremental barrel as will be seen below. Carbon dioxide flooding (continuous or alternating
with water-WAG) is the dominant EOR process in the United States, mostly because it has been
shown that it is economically viable. It also has the externality of capturing carbon creating
future business opportunities if carbon trading ever is implemented.
This paper presents an overview of EOR field experiences in carbonate reservoirs in the United
States, an analysis of recent efforts and discusses briefly on new opportunities for novel chemical

Author to whom correspondence should be addressed: Eduardo.Manrique@ceta.fiu.edu

methods. The main EOR experiences reviewed are CO2 injection, polymer flooding, steam
injection and in-situ combustion.

Introduction

Carbonate reservoirs are naturally fractured geologic formations characterized by heterogeneous

porosity and permeability distributions. For example, in the case of low porosity and low
permeability carbonate rocks (more specifically rock matrices), the fluid flow in the reservoir can
be completely dependent on the fracture network, while the matrix only plays a source role,
analogous to tight sand formations and natural gas flow. In the case of porous carbonate rocks,
fracture networks can still cause uneven sweeping of the reservoir leading to early breakthrough
of injected fluids in the producing wells, resulting in low recovery factors. Given the abundance
of carbonate reservoirs, they have been the subject of numerous studies that have made attempts
to characterize the heterogeneities of carbonate reservoirs, classify the different types or classes
of fractured reservoirs and determine how rock and fluid properties of carbonate reservoirs
impact ultimate recovery [1-6].
The TORIS database (maintained by the U.S. Department of Energy) reflects that 22% of the
OOIP of the U.S. is in shallow shelf carbonate reservoirs. U.S. shallow shelf carbonate reservoirs
are found in over 14 States; however, over 70% of the OOIP is located in reservoirs in Texas and
New Mexico, mostly concentrated in the Permian Basin [7-8]. Although primary production,
waterflooding and CO2 floods combined with infill drilling programs have been the most
representative recovery methods in the last three decades, several EOR strategies have been
tested in the past and there are still several active research programs seeking alternatives to
economically increase the recovery factor of these mostly light crude-oil reservoirs. Although the
Permian Basin areas of West Texas and Southeast New Mexico are approaching maturity, the
potential for improved oil recovery is still very high. A recent study reports an estimate of 30
billion barrels of mobile oil in the Permian Basin reiterating the strategic importance of EOR
technologies for carbonate reservoirs and its impact on U.S. oil production [7-13].
This paper presents an overview of EOR field experiences in US carbonate reservoirs with
special emphasis on EOR by chemical methods. The first section of this paper includes a brief
description of EOR field implementations such as CO2 injection, steam injection and in-situ
combustion. The second section includes a review of EOR chemical flooding implemented in
U.S. carbonates reservoirs and the chemical additives used. We conclude with an analysis of new
opportunities for novel chemical additives that will surely provide increased oil production from
carbonate reservoirs in the U.S. in the years to come.
The information used to identify EOR field experiences on U.S. carbonate reservoirs was
obtained from the Tertiary Oil Recovery Information System (DOE-TORIS database) [14], Oil
& Gas Journal Biennial EOR Surveys [15-30] and an extensive review of the trade literature.
Though every attempt has been made to cover the majority of EOR projects in carbonate
reservoirs, surely we have missed some. However, we believe the paper presents a
comprehensive overview of documented EOR experiences applied in this type of reservoirs.

EOR in U.S. Carbonate Reservoirs

Based on the most recent Oil & Gas Journal EOR Survey (April, 2004), there are 143 active
EOR projects, having gas injection and thermal methods as the most important EOR processes
(Figure 1). One important observation is that gas injection projects, mainly CO2 floods, are
becoming more widespread and outnumber thermal projects since 2002. Production from these
active projects reached 663,451 b/d, 52% (345,514 b/d) and 48% (317,877 b/d) coming from

thermal and gas injection projects, respectively. Of the 143 active EOR projects, 57 (almost
40%) are developed in carbonate reservoirs. CO2 flooding is by far the most common recovery
process in carbonate reservoirs in the United States with a total of 48 active projects. While air
injection (6), nitrogen injection (2), steam injection (1) and surfactant stimulation (1) are the
remaining active EOR projects in carbonate reservoirs [30]. The following section presents a
general overview of these projects, having a special section dedicated to EOR chemical floods in
carbonate reservoirs.
2.1 Carbon Dioxide Injection
CO2 injection has been the most important EOR recovery process in U.S. carbonate reservoirs
since the early 1980s [19, 30]. From the current U.S active CO2 floods (71) 67% (48 projects)
are in carbonate reservoirs, mostly located in the state of Texas [30]. Table 1 shows some of the
CO2 floods (continuous or in WAG mode) that have been developed in U.S. carbonate reservoirs
14, 17-106]. CO2 projects presented in Table 1 include active projects up until April 2004 and
past projects that have been widely documented in the literature.
CO2 flooding has been used effectively in mature and in waterflooded carbonate reservoirs.
Additionally, the growing number of CO2 projects is usually tied to the availability of natural
sources of CO2 and CO2 transporting pipelines relatively close to the oilfields under this recovery
method, especially in the Permian Basin. The Permian Basin is the largest consumer of CO2,
mostly though a vast network of pipelines (vs. CO2 trucks). The majority of the CO2 consumed
in the West Texas and New Mexico Permian Basin are from commercial natural reservoirs in
Colorado (The McElmo Dome and the Sheep Mountain Fields), New Mexico (The Bravo Dome
region) and Wyoming (La Barge Field) [7, 11, 29, 107].
Another important variable that explains the growing number of CO2 projects is cost of using
CO2. Reports indicate that CO2 floods in West Texas can be economically attractive at oil prices
of 18 $/bbl assuming that CO2 prices remains less than 1$/Mscf. The migration towards CO2
floods is also consistent with the rise of energy costs (thermal projects) and more specifically
natural gas prices (thermal and hydrocarbon gas injection projects) [29, 30].
CO2 flooding is expected to continue to expand with CO2 coming, in the near future, mostly from
natural sources. During the current year, 2004, 4 new CO2 floods are expected to start; three of
them in Texas carbonate reservoirs (Levelland, Seminole and Yates) [30]. Additionally, if we
add recent initiatives on CO2 capture and sequestration in United States the likelihood that the
number of CO2 projects will increase is great [108-110]. This growth in CO2 flooding will be
preceded by many reservoir studies, evaluations and even pilot tests [7, 10-12, 111-112]. Given
the variety of crude oil bearing reservoirs, both their petrophysical properties and their
production history, the use of advanced screening models and analytical simulation strategies is
not only strongly recommended but a necessity [11, 113-115]. If carbon sequestration in
geologic formation is to become one of the tools used to reduce CO2 emissions to the
atmosphere, the complete process will need to be analyzed, from the source of the CO2, most
likely a burner tip at a power plant, its separation from the other components of the flue gas, the
pipeline network to collect and distribute CO2, the compression facilities, the geologic structure
integrity to determine the fate of the CO2, and so on. The future of CO2 available for EOR may
be such that it will be a commodity, with regional hubs for delivery and specifications for the
product, much like those for natural gas. To date, CO2 flooding is mostly based on natural
sources of the gas. If CO2 flooding is to increase, non-natural sources will need to be
incorporated at competitive costs. Even in the best scenario for CO2 flooding, not all resources
that will be targeted to meet the worlds energy needs will be produced via CO2 flooding. The

case of carbonates to date seems to represent a case where EOR will continue to be dominated by
CO2 flooding unless more viable EOR strategies are developed. In other words, if CO2 is
available, it will remain the logical choice for carbonate reservoirs.
2.2 In-Situ Combustion
In-situ combustion (ISC) is the oldest thermal recovery method. It has been used since 1920s
with many successes and failures. Although several projects have been reported economically
attractive, this recovery method is considered as a high-risk process and is under widespread use
[116-118].
Air injection in heavy and light crude oil reservoirs is known as ISC but is also termed as high
pressure air injection (HPAI) when is used in deep light crude oil reservoirs. Air injection has
proven to be an effective recovery method in a variety of reservoir types and conditions and
recently has received considerable attention for onshore and offshore applications based several
successful projects in light crude oil reservoirs [116-121].
The number of air injection projects in the United States has been declined since 1982. Currently
there are seven (7) active air injection projects in the United States, 6 of them in light crude oil (>
30API) carbonate reservoirs in North and South Dakota [30]. Horse Creek, South and West
Buffalo and Medicine Pole Hill are good examples of combustion projects in light crude oil
carbonate reservoirs (Table 2) [122-127]. The success and expansion of Buffalos and Medicine
Pole Hill in North and South Dakota demonstrates the feasibility of air injection in carbonate
reservoirs to improve oil recovery and revitalize mature and waterflooded fields. Air injection is
considered an alternative for offshore and onshore mature fields with no access to CO2 sources,
specially mature fields in the Gulf of Mexico given the limitation of space available in platforms
and also because CO2 injection from on-shore power generation plants and industrial sources
would probably not be economic in the short term. An additional benefit of air injection projects
is the generation of flue gases for pressure maintenance that also can be re-injected in the same
or reservoirs close by. Production results of recent air injection projects in North and South
Dakota (Williston Basin) may dictate the future of this recovery method in carbonate reservoirs
in the United States.
2.3 Nitrogen Injection
Nitrogen flooding has been an effective recovery process for deep, high-pressure, light oil
reservoirs. Generally for these types of reservoirs nitrogen flooding can reach miscible
conditions. However, immiscible nitrogen injection also has been used for pressure maintenance,
cycling of condensate reservoirs and as a drive gas for miscible slugs, among others. Nitrogen
injection has been used in the United States since mid 1960s at the Devonian Block 31 Field in
West Texas [11, 128-130]. During the last 40 years over 30 nitrogen injection projects have been
developed in the United States, some of them in carbonate reservoirs in Alabama, Florida and
Texas (Table 3) [20-30, 129-141]. At the present time there are only two (2) active nitrogen
injection projects in carbonate reservoirs in the United States, the Water-Alternating-Gas in Jay
Little Escambia (N2-WAG) and as a pressure maintenance project in Yates Field (Table 3). In the
case of the N2-WAG in Jay LEC, this is a mature project started in 1982, while N2 at Yates
started in mid 1980s as a reservoir pressure maintenance strategy [25-30, 137-141].
Although high pressure nitrogen injection is being considered as an enhanced oil recovery
process for naturally fractured carbonate light crude oil reservoirs, the number of projects in
carbonate reservoirs are not expected to grow significantly in the near future due to the expected
increased availability of CO2. One example is the recent announcement of a new immiscible CO2
project in Yates field by Kinder Morgan, one of the CO2 companies with nearly 50% of share of

this giant West Texas Field [30, 141-143]. This downstream integration by a CO2 producer is
a novel attempt to better monetize its CO2 reserves.
2.4 Hydrocarbon Gases Injection
Miscible and immiscible hydrocarbon gas injection still is an important recovery process in the
United States; however, this recovery process has been applied mainly in sandstone reservoirs
during the last years [7, 30, 36]. In the last Oil & Gas Journal EOR survey all eight (8) active
hydrocarbon miscible reported projects are in sandstone reservoirs, 6 of them in Alaska [30].
Table 4 shows eight (8) hydrocarbon injection projects developed in U.S. carbonate reservoirs
between early 1960s to mid 1980s [7, 14, 16, 36, 144-149].
If there is no other way to monetize the natural gas, a natural use is in EOR processes. One
example is The Dolphin field, which was discovered by the end of 1986 in Divide County, North
Dakota. The Dolphin field is a small-undersaturated volatile oil dolomitic reservoir (OOIP of 6.3
MMSTB) starting a miscible hydrocarbon gas injection in October 1988. By year 1992 the
recovery factor reported reached 31% and with an expected final recovery factor of 51%, more
than twice of the estimated recovery without the gas cycling project [150-152].
Finally, the growing demand for energy and the increasing prices for natural gas will likely affect
the viability of new large-scale hydrocarbon gas projects.
2.5 Steamflooding
Steam injection has been the most important EOR recovery process during the past decades in
the U.S. Current active EOR thermal methods projects (46) in the U.S. produces around 345,514
b/d and 98% of this production is coming from steamfloods. However, from the 46 active
projects reported in the last Oil & Gas Journal EOR survey, only one is in a light crude oil
bearing carbonate reservoir (Yates Field) [30]. Additionally, continuous steam injection has not
been a common EOR method used in carbonate reservoirs or in light/medium crude oil reservoirs
around the world [153].
Although light/medium oil steamflooding was field tested in the U.S. at Brea Field in 1960s,
few projects in light/medium crude oil reservoirs have been developed or reported in the
literature [153,154]. With regard to continuous steam injection in carbonate reservoirs, only two
projects were identified at Garland and Yates Fields (Table 5). The Garland field (Big Horn
Basin, Wyoming) steam drive was developed in the Madison limestone formation [155-156]
while the Yates (Grayburg/San Andres) steamflood project has been one of several EOR projects
tested in this Texas giant field [157-158].

Chemical flooding in U.S. Carbonate Reservoirs

EOR chemical methods lived their best times in the 1980s. Total of active projects peaked in
1986 having polymer flooding as the most important chemical method of EOR (Figures 1 & 2)
[18-30]. Nevertheless, chemical flooding has been shown to be sensitive to oil prices, highly
influenced by chemical additive costs, in comparison with CO2 floods (Figure 3). By the time of
this publication more than 320 pilot projects or field wide chemical floods have been reported in
the United States. However, up to 55 projects have been conducted in U.S. carbonate reservoirs,
most of them polymer floods [18-30, 159-162]. Given that most of the chemical floods were
developed between 1960s and 1980s, the present section was divided into two, describing
chemical flooding in U.S. carbonate reservoirs before and after 1990s. Our analysis leads us to
believe that there is still a great need for novel chemical additives for move efficient EOR
processes for applications not only in carbonates but in other reservoir types such as sandstones.

3.1

Chemical floods in U.S Carbonates: 1960 to 1990

3.1.1 Polymer Flooding

As it was mentioned above, polymer flooding has been the most used EOR chemical method in
both sandstone and carbonate reservoirs. To date, more than 290 polymer field projects have
been referenced or reported in the literature. The number of polymer floods in United States
peaked in 1986 with 178 active projects (Figure 2) Most of the polymer floods used watersoluble polyacrylamides and biopolymers (polysaccharides and cellulose polymers) to a lesser
degree. Studies of more than 200 polymer floods reported average polymer injection of 19 to 150
lb/acre-ft and concentrations ranging from and 50 to 3700 ppm, respectively [159-164]. While
related additional oil recoveries vary from 0 up to 18 % of OOIP [159-163].
In the case of carbonate reservoirs; most of the polymer floods reported used polyacrylamides
and were developed in early stages of waterflooding as part of a mobility control strategy to
improve sweep efficiency and final oil recovery of waterflood projects. Table 6 shows some of
the chemical floods that have been developed in U.S. carbonate reservoirs during the period
between 1960 and 1990 [14, 17-30, 159-174]. Although many field case histories have already
been analyzed and summarized in the literature, we present below some representative field
projects (Eliasville Caddo Unit, Byron and Vacuum Fields) to briefly describe the main
experiences with polymer floods in carbonate formations.
Eliasville Caddo Unit (ECU)
The Eliasville field was discovered in 1920. The field produces from the Caddo limestone at
3250 to 3350 ft. having approximately 40 ft. of net pay. ECU has a paraffinic light crude oil (39
API). The main reservoir properties are shown in Table 6 [20, 23, 159, 160, 162, 170].
The waterflood started in 1966 with poor results. Based on (previous) successful polymer flood
pilots developed by Mobil (Curry Unit) and Oryx (Parks Ranch Unit) in different Caddo
waterfloods, a large polymer flood (16 well patterns, 57 producers) was proposed and started in
December 1980 [159-170].
The objective of the polymerflood at ECU was to improve waterflood sweep efficiency and
performance. The polymer used was a hydrolyzed polyacrylamide (HPAM) to viscosify a fresh
injection water (1200 mg/l TDS) in a reservoir with a salty connate water (165,000 mg/l TDS).
The polymer was injected over a period of 34 months (December 1980 to November 1983). The
viscosity of the injected polymer solution was reduced from 40cp at the beginning to 5cp at the
end of the injection. A total of 12.9% PV polymer slug (30 million lbs) was injected having a
good production response. Oil production increased from 375 BOPD (October 1981) to an all
unit high of 1622 BOPD (August 1984). The cumulative HPAM injected (54 lb/acre-ft) at ECU
was greater than most US polymer injection projects. Finally, polymer retention by the limestone
reservoir was 50 lb/acre-ft and an estimate of 0.46 barrels of incremental oil per pound of
polymer injected were reported [159, 160, 162, 170].
Byron Field
Embar-Tensleep oil was discovered in Byron (Big Horn Basin, Wyoming) in 1929. The Embar
and Tensleep reservoirs are limestone and sandstones formations, respectively. The waterflood
operation began in 1974. In December 1982, the polymerflood started as a strategy to improve
waterflood sweep efficiency. . The project area covered 1500 acres with 36 injectors and 47
producers. The polymerflood was concentrated in Tensleep, where most of the oil field reserves

are found. However, the present section will briefly describe the polymer injection at the Embar
formation [159, 172].
The Embar formation is a limestone/dolomite reservoir with an average pay zone of 22 ft. with a
crude oil of 23 degrees API. Major reservoir properties are listed in Table 6. The polymerflood at
the Byron field considered a tapered sequence of three slugs of 10% PV each starting with
partially hydrolyzed polyacrylamide (PHPA) solutions of 1000 ppm, 600 ppm and 330 ppm,
followed by the drive water [14, 159, 172-174].
The polymerflood ended December 1, 1985 after the injection of 0.37 PV of polymer. The
project has significantly improved oil recovery measured by total field production and water-oil
ratio (WOR). Although most of the polymer was retained and effectively displaced the oil in the
reservoir, polymer breakthrough has been reported requiring well interventions (rod parting and
corrosion problems) and polymer recycling in high injectivity (fractured) wells [159, 172-174].
Vacuum Field
The Vacuum (Grayburg-San Andres) Field (New Mexico) was discovered in 1924. Production
on the Phillips Hale and Mable leases started in 1939. Grayburg is a dolomitic formation with
an average net pay of 148 ft. for the 320 acres of both leases. Water injection was initiated in
May 1983 and polymer injection started three months later (August 1983). The Hale-Mable
leases are one of three polymer-floods developed at the Vacuum Field [162, 165].
Particularly hydrolyzed polyacrylamide (PHPA) polymer solution started in late August 1983.
Polymer solutions were prepared with fresh water (387 ppm TDS) produced from the Ogallala
formation. Although the injection was to be performed increasing polymer concentration from 50
ppm to 200 ppm, the polymer slug was kept at 50 ppm due to an underestimated injectivity
reduction (from 13,000 BWPD to 10,000 BWPD). The original plan considered the injection of
15% PV of a 200 ppm polymer solution (676,000 lbs of active polymer) over a period of two
years. However, the project was developed considering a total injection rate of 10,000 BPD (12
injectors) of a polymer solution of 50 ppm until the end of 1984 (16 months). During this period
of time, production peaked and remained almost constant at 3,500 BOPD (14 producers) and into
1985 production started to decline and an increase of water production was reported [162, 165].
The polymer floods at the Hale and Mable leases were declared as successful projects in terms of
increasing ultimate oil recovery. Finally, a polymer retention/absorption of 94.5 lbs/acre-ft. was
reported based on laboratory experiments [165].
3.1.2 Micellar-Polymer Flooding
Micellar polymer flooding, also known as surfactant-polymer flooding (SP), has been the second
most used EOR chemical method in light and medium crude oil reservoirs in the United States
up until the early 1990s (Figure 2). However, reported field projects are relatively low in
comparison with polymer floods. Until 1990 at least 30 field micellar polymer floods have been
referenced or reported in the literature. Although this recovery method was considered as a
promising EOR process since the 1970s, the high concentrations and cost of surfactants and cosurfactants, combined with the low oil prices during mid 1980s (Figure 3) limited its use [18,
23, 30, 159, 175-177].
In most of the field cases reviewed the type of surfactants used in micellar polymer floods were
petroleum sulfonates and synthetic alkyl sulfonates, which usually requires the use of cosurfactants (non ionic surfactants) or co-solvents, mostly alcohols. Additionally, to reduce
potential surfactant-formation brine incompatibilities and potentially reduce chemical adsorption

in some cases a preflush of fresh water was required. Water-soluble polyacrylamides have been
the most common polymer used in these projects with a few cases using biopolymers. Although
some projects reported significant oil recoveries (Loudon, Big Muddy, Henry West and
Bingham), oil recoveries were less than expected [159, 175, 177-180].
Regarding the number of field projects in U.S. carbonate reservoirs, only three (3) of the 55
chemical floods reviewed in the present paper were micellar polymer floods at Wesgum Field
(Arkansas), Wichita County Regular and Bob Slaughter Block in Texas (Table 6). The latter will
be briefly described in the next section.
Bob Slaughter Block
The Bob Slaughter Block Lease (BSBL) is a San Andres dolomite reservoir. This lease is under
production since late 1930s with waterflooding operation starting in the 1960s. The BSBL
reservoir is at a depth of 5,000 ft and has a reservoir temperature of 109 F. The reservoir
thickness is about 100 ft and contains a crude oil of 31 API (Table 6). The first surfactant pilot
test reported in this reservoir was in 1974 and, based on those results, two micellar polymer
pilots were developed in the early 1980s that will be briefly described below [16, 17, 171].
Micellar polymer formulations were based on petroleum sulfonates (emulsion and non-emulsion
solutions) and a biopolymer (polysaccharide polymer). Two formulations were tested
considering a two-well configuration at a reduced well spacing thus reducing costs and
evaluation time [171].
Water injection at the first well-pair test (86ft well spacing) started in April 1981. Surfactant
injection commences on August 26 and consisted in an emulsion formulation containing a
mixture of petroleum sulfonates and an alkylaryl ether sulfate as a solubilizer. A total of 12,846
bbl of surfactant was injected in a period of 171 days (February 1982). The surfactant slug was
followed by the biopolymer slug (1,000ppm) dissolved in fresh water from the Ogallala
formation. The polymer injection finished on July 16th (5840 bbl) continuing with the injection
of fresh water until November 8, 1983 when the injection was switched to field brine. The pilot
reported high recovery efficiency (77%) with a low retention of surfactant and polymer. About
65% and 55% of surfactant and polymer were recovered, respectively [159, 171].
With regard to the second well-pair pilot test (101 ft well spacing), brine injection began on
April 21, 1981. The injection of the non-emulsion surfactant system started at the end of July
1982. The surfactant formulation consisted of a mixture of petroleum sulfonates and an alkyl
ether sulfate solubilizer. The surfactant injection ended in late September after injecting 5,058
bbl over 61 days at an average of 83 B/D. The surfactant slug was immediately followed by the
polymer injection (1,000ppm) for 45 days at an average injection rate of 72 b/d. Fresh water
injection continued after the end of the polymer slug until November 1983, switching to the
injection of field brine. Although oil recovery efficiency (43%) was lower than the previous
well-pair pilot test, results were considered promising. Surfactant and polymer retention were
also low, 41% and 58% of the chemical additives were recovered, respectively. Finally, both
surfactant-polymer systems tested clearly demonstrated that they were capable to mobilize and
displace tertiary oil. However, no field expansion was performed at BSBL [159, 171].
3.1.3 Alkali-Surfactant-Polymer Flooding
Alkaline Surfactant Polymer (ASP) combines the key mechanisms from each of the enhanced oil
recovery chemical methods. Generally, ASP formulations use moderate pH chemicals such as
sodium bicarbonate (NaHCO3) or sodium bicarbonate (Na2CO3) rather than sodium hydroxide

(NaOH) or sodium silicates. Main functions of alkaline additives are to promote crude oil
emulsification and increase ionic strength decreasing interfacial tension (IFT) and regulating
phase behavior. The alkaline additives also help to reduce the adsorption of anionic chemical
additives by increasing the negative charge density of mineral rocks and at the same time making
the rock more water-wet. Thus, the use of alkaline agents contributes to reduce the surfactant
concentrations making ASP formulations less costly than conventional micellar formulations.
With regard to the surfactants; the most common products that have been used are petroleum
sulfonates. The main function of the surfactants is to reduce IFT between the oil and the injected
aqueous formulation. The injected surfactants may sometimes form mixed micelles (at the oilwater interface) with in-situ natural surfactants, broadening the alkali concentration range for
minimum IFT. On the other hand, the polymer (usually polyacrylamides) is used to reduce water
mobility and sweep efficiency by increasing the solutions viscosity and decreasing effective
solution permeability when it is adsorbed onto the formation [175-181].
ASP flooding is an oil recovery method that has traditionally been applied to sandstone
reservoirs and until now no field tests in US carbonate reservoirs have been reported in the
literature reviewed. However, ASP has been tested in carbonate formations at the laboratory
scale and one example is the study at Upper Edwards reservoir, which will be described below
[182].
Additionally, recent studies on wettability alteration during surfactant flooding of carbonate
minerals showed that commercial anionic surfactants (Alkyl aryl ethoxylated sulfonate and
propoxylated sulfates) can change the wettability of calcite surface to intermediate/water-wet
conditions with a West Texas crude oil in the presence of Na2CO3 [9]. These results suggest that
conventional ASP formulations may be used in carbonate reservoirs. An example of that is the
ASP flooding proposed at the Mauddud carbonate reservoir in Bahrain (Bahrain Petroleum
Company-BAPCO) based on promising AS (Na2CO3-surfactant) single well tests as a previous
step to evaluate the feasibility of an ASP flooding at this oil-wet limestone reservoir [180].
Cretaceous Upper Edwards
The oil-wet Cretaceous Upper Edwards reservoir (Central Texas) was considered a good
candidate for chemical flooding. For that reason an ASP process with wettability alteration was
evaluated at the laboratory scale. The field was discovered in 1922. This carbonate reservoir
produced by a strong natural water drive, which at the end of 1980s reported watercuts of up to
99%.
Chemical flooding was considered to be the most promising enhanced oil recovery method to
increase oil recovery at Upper Edwards. ASP formulations show better oil recoveries than
polymer flood and alkaline-polymer formulations. Although laboratory studies have identified a
promising ASP formulation that yields excellent oil recovery from highly waterflooded oil-wet
carbonate cores, ASP was not tested at the field scale.
The chemical additives used to develop an optimum ASP formulation were Na2CO3, commercial
petroleum sulfonates and polyacrylamide polymer. However, to minimize the precipitation of
divalent cations salts due to the interaction of Na2CO3 and reservoir brine the use of sodium
tripolyphosphate (STPP) was required. Additionally, STPP also promoted oil emulsification and
at the same time showed alteration of wettability to a more water-wet condition [182].
3.2 1990s, current and future efforts
EOR projects by chemical methods in United States have experienced a drastic reduction in the
last decade, especially with an average crude oil price below 20 $ per barrel in the 1990s (Figure

2 & 3). The latest O&GJ EOR Survey in 2004 reports that only 4 EOR chemical projects were
active in the United States [30]. Despite this, research activities and field demonstration projects
on EOR chemical methods are underway in the U.S. through Joint Industrial Projects and diverse
private and DOE initiatives [8, 9, 177, 183-190].
Surfactant injection in carbonate reservoirs seems to be the chemical method of choice,
considered mostly as a stimulation strategy in these type of reservoirs in recent years. The next
section will describe surfactant stimulation and two field projects developed in U.S. carbonate
reservoirs.
3.2.1 Surfactant stimulation
Although surfactant flooding methods were developed mostly for sandstone reservoirs, it has
been suggested that oil-wet fractures carbonate reservoirs should show great potential for
surfactant EOR applications. Given that oil production from fractured reservoirs can occur by
spontaneous water imbibitions and oil expulsion from the rock matrix into fractures, the use of
surfactants can be attractive to improve oil recovery in oil-wet carbonate reservoirs by changing
rock wettability (to mixed / water wet) and promoting the imbibition process [8, 9, 191-194].
The main objectives of surfactant flooding in fractured carbonates are wettability alteration and
reduction of the interfacial tension (ITF) with the reduced surfactant adsorption and
concentration. To achieve these goals several studies have considered the use of different types
of surfactants (anionic, cationic and non-ionic). Anionic surfactants such as alkyl aryl sulfonates
(including ethoxylated compounds) and alkyl propoxylated sulfates have been identified as
adequate surfactants to change the wettability of carbonate minerals and reduce ITF to very low
values (<10-2 m N/m) with a West Texas crude oil. However, the adsorption was reduced
significantly in the presence of an alkali [9]. Cationic surfactants that have been evaluated to
modify the wettability of carbonate rocks by different research groups include Dodecyl
Trimethyl Ammonium Bromide (DTAB), cocoalkyltrimethyl ammonium chloride (CAC) and
anionic ethoxy sulfate. Ethoxylated alcohols and poly-oxyethylene alcohol (POA) are two of the
non-ionic surfactants that have been evaluated for the same purpose [8, 9, 188, 194].
Although surfactant or micellar flooding field projects in carbonate reservoirs are not currently
reported in the U.S., surfactant injection has been tested in carbonate reservoirs as chemical
stimulation methods (Huff & Puff) in the Cottonwood Creek and Yates Fields.
Yates Fields
The Yates Field (Texas) was discovered in 1962. The Yates San Andres reservoir is a naturally
fractured dolomite formation and several IOR methods have been evaluated in this prolific field
with a cumulative production over 1.3 billion barrels of a 30 API crude oil. San Andres is a 400
ft thick formation with average matrix porosity and permeability of 15% and 100md,
respectively (Table 7) [30, 141, 193].
Marathon Oil Co. started dilute surfactant well stimulation pilot tests in the early 1990s.
Surfactant slugs were injected into the oil water transition zone considering single and multi-well
injection strategies. Once the surfactant slug was injected the well was shut-in (soak time) for a
brief period of time. The well was returned to production increasing the recovery of oil mainly
due to the reduction of IFT, gravity segregation of oil and water between the fractures and the
matrix, and wettability alteration, although to a lesser extent [193-196].
The surfactant used in Yates pilots was a non-ionic ethoxy alcohol (Shell 91-8). The surfactant
solutions injected were prepared with produced water in high concentrations (3100-3880 ppm),

well above the critical micelle concentration (CMC). Field results were reported as economically
encouraging. As an example, the average oil production rate for one of the pilot wells increased
from 35 to 67 barrels per day with an incremental of 17,000 barrels of oil at the time of
publication [8, 196].
The Cotton Creek Field
The Cottonwood Creek Field is located in the Bighorn Basin of Wyoming. Cottonwood Creek is
a dolomitic class II reservoir. Class II reservoirs have low matrix porosity and permeability. The
matrix provides some storage capacity and the fractures provide the fluid flow pathways.
Typically, these types of reservoirs produce less than 10% of the OOIP by primary recovery and
exhibit low additional recovery factors during waterflooding. Cottonwood Creek produces from
the dolomitic Phosphoria formation. Reservoir thickness varies from 20-100ft and average
porosity and permeability of 10% and 16 md, respectively (Table 7). The reservoir produces a
sour 27 API crude oil [2, 8, 28-30].
Continental Resources Incorporated started, in August 1999, single well surfactant stimulation
treatments at Cottonwood Creek. Well treatments consider the injection of 500 to 1,500 bbl of a
surfactant solution slug depending on the perforated interval. Typically the injection period takes
3 days and the shut-in period (soak time) about a week. Surfactant solutions were prepared using
the non-ionic poly-oxyethylene alcohol (POA) at a concentration of 750 ppm, almost twice the
CMC. Initial well treatments considered an acid cleanup with HCl (15%) to remove iron sulfide
(FeS) from the well bore to avoid or reduce surfactant adsorption. However, production results
were below expectations. The initial results led to the elimination of the acid pretreatment and
the increase of the surfactant concentration to 1500 ppm (to allow for potential losses by
adsorption to FeS) in subsequent surfactant stimulations [8, 188].
Single well surfactant soak treatments have been considered promising despite the differences on
oil production responses of at least 23 well treatments reported in the literature. Increase in oil
recoveries in Cottonwood Creek have been attributed to wettability alteration (less oil-wet)
promoting the imbibition process and not to a reduction of the IFT. Experimental IFT
measurements of POA solutions (prepared with synthetic brine) with the Cottonwood Creek oil
indicated 5,7 dynes/cm at ambient temperature. Finally, the minimum amount of surfactant for a
successful treatment was 60 lbs/ft of perforated internal based on the analysis of 23 well
treatments recently reported in the literature [8, 188].

New chemical additives for EOR Chemical flooding

EOR technologies have demonstrated their capacity to increase oil production and total recovery
factors, extending reservoir/asset life, all while being economically viable. High initial capital
investments and high marginal costs have limited their widespread application in the U.S. and
around the world. However, incremental improvements of existing technologies have been
achieved in the last decade reducing the cost per barrel of some EOR projects, having CO2
injection (continuous or in water alternating mode) as the best example. Based on field
experiences from the past 20 years there is a growing trend towards CO2 floods in carbonate
reservoirs, most of them in the Permian Basin mostly due to the availability of pipelined natural
CO2. However, U.S oil reserves are not expected to be produced only via CO2 injection, either
from natural or from industrial sources, leaving room for other EOR methods including chemical
flooding.
EOR chemical floods are not expected to grow significantly in the near future, especially in U.S.
carbonate reservoirs. However, the maturity of a many fields will require the use of surfactant

based recovery methods to recover residual oil in waterflooded reservoirs. Sodium carbonate,
alkali, and polyacrylamides, polymer, have been the most used chemical additives combined
processes (AS, AP or ASP) or pure polymer floods, respectively, Additionally, the applicability
of sodium carbonate and polyacrylamides in carbonate and sandstone reservoir has been proven
effective and widely reported in the literature [159-164, 176-180, 188, 193, 197-198]. However,
even though petroleum sulfonates have been the most common surfactant used in micellar or
ASP floods [176, 177, 179-181, 197], the use of no-ionic and cationic surfactant has been
recently evaluated at lab and field scale for carbonate reservoirs [8, 9, 188, 191, 193, 199-202].
The latter clearly shows that current R&D efforts are oriented towards the evaluation of
wettability changes and IFT reductions by dilute surfactant injection in carbonate formations.
Surfactant injection may be also benefit from the relatively low costs associated with
waterflooding projects, even more if a waterflood is already in place. Additionally, recent field
tests, in the U.S and abroad, of surfactant stimulation, to improve oil recovery [188, 193-196],
Alkali-Surfactant (AS) injection, to improve well injectivity in low permeability formations
under waterflooding [203-204] in oil-wet limestone reservoirs [180], will certainly provide new
insights useful for future chemical floods in carbonate reservoirs.
We strongly believe that research based on the use of Far Market products, to increase oil
recovery of depleted/matures fields in both sandstone and carbonate reservoirs, is where the next
significant technological development will be found. The proposed research is focused on two
major areas:
Selection of organic compounds with alkaline properties that improve chemical formulations
conventionally used in EOR by chemical methods (ASP, AS or AP) and that reduce or eliminate
the softening of injection waters due to their high solubility and their capability of sequestering
divalent cations.
New fluid formulations based on new-engineered materials (Nanomaterials) able to modify, in
a controlled way, rock-fluid and fluid-fluid properties and also behave as tailored surfactants
improving the flow of oil in the porous media.

Conclusions

Over the last decade, Enhanced Oil Recovery by gas injection has been the dominant recovery
method for crude oil reservoirs, especially in carbonate reservoirs with low
permeability/injectivity.
Given their low matrix permeability, carbonate reservoirs seem to represent a case where EOR
will continue to be dominated by CO2 flooding unless more viable EOR strategies are developed
in the near future
The application of EOR processes, other than CO2 and polymer flooding, has occurred in a
limited number of carbonate reservoirs.
Present and previous reviews show that EOR chemical methods in carbonate reservoirs have
made a relatively small contribution, in terms of total oil recovered.
Further studies are required to improve economic viability of technically proven EOR chemical
methods, such as ASP, for their application in other fields including remote and small fields with
no short term access to CO2.
U.S. crude oil reserves in carbonate reservoirs can be increased through the application of proven
EOR methods which are increasingly viable from the point of view of their costs and
effectiveness.

Chemical methods will benefit greatly from new strategies that reduce the requirements on the
specifications of the injection water and use existing infrastructure without much new
investment.

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by the U.S. Department of Energy under Grant DE-FG01-02PI32033.
The authors would like to thank our colleague Cecilia Bravo for her helpful comments and to
Oletha Thompson, Publication Specialist at the National Petroleum Technology Office, for her
support providing valuable documentation for the present report.

600

No. of projects

Thermal
500

Chemical

400

Gases
Total

300
200
100

19
71
19
74
19
76
19
78
19
80
19
82
19
84
19
86
19
88
19
90
19
92
19
94
19
96
19
98
20
00
20
02
20
04

Year

Figure 1. Evolution of EOR projects in the United States [30].

Micellar-Polymer
Caustic Alkaline

No. of projects

20

Surfactants
15

Polymer

200
175
150
125
100

10

75
50

25
0

19
71
19
74
19
76
19
78
19
80
19
82
19
84
19
86
19
88
19
90
19
92
19
94
19
96
19
98
20
00
20
02
20
04

No. of Polymer Floods

25

Year

Figure 2. Evolution of EOR projects by chemical methods in the United States [23, 30].

Figure 3. Evolution of Chemical and CO2 EOR projects with U.S. average real oil prices
(EIA: http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/aer/txt/stb0516.xls )

Table 1. Examples of Carbon Dioxide Floods (Continuous or WAG) in U.S. Carbonate Reservoirs
Location

Field

Pay zone/Reservoir

Formation

K
md

Depth
ft.

Gravity
API

Oil Visc.
cp.

Temp.
F

Ref.

Kansas
Michigan
Michigan
New
Mexico
New
Mexico
New
Mexico
New
Mexico
North
Dakota
Texas

Hall-Gurney
Dover 36
Dover 33

LKC C
Silurian-Niagaran
Silurian-Niagaran

Limestone
Limestone/Dolomite
Limestone/Dolomite

25,0
7,0
7,1

85,0
5,0
10,0

2900,0
5500,0
5400,0

39,6
41,0
43,0

3,0
0,8
0,8

99,0
108,0
108,0

30-32
30
30

Maljamar

Grayburg/San Andres

Dolomite/Sandstone

10,2

18,0

4000,0

36,0

1,0

90,0

19, 25, 33-37

East Vacuum

San Andres

Dolomite

11,7

11,0

4400,0

38,0

1,0

101,0

28, 36, 38, 39

Vacuum

San Andres

Dolomite

12,0

22,0

4550,0

38,0

1,0

101,0

28, 30, 40, 41

North Hobbs

San Andres

Dolomite

15,0

13,0

4200,0

35,0

0.9

102,0

30

Little Knife

Mission Canyon

Dolomite

18,0

22,0

9800,0

43,0

0,2

240,0

Anton Irish
Bennet Ranch
Unit
Cedar Lake
Adair San
Andres Unit
Seminole San
Andres Unit
Seminole UnitROZ Phase I

Clearfork

Dolomite

7,0

5,0

5900,0

28,0

3,0

115,0

19, 36,39, 42,

43
28, 30, 44

San Andres

Dolomite

10,0

7,0

5200,0

33,0

1,0

105,0

28, 30

San Andres

Dolomite

14,0

5,0

4700,0

32,0

2,0

103,0

28, 30

San Andres

Dolomite

15,0

8,0

4852,0

35,0

1,0

98,0

14, 28, 30, 45

San Andres

Dolomite

13,0

20,0

5100,0

34,0

1,2

101,0

14, 25, 30, 46,

47

San Andres

Dolomite

12,0

62,0

5500,0

35,0

1,0

104,0

30
14, 17, 30, 36,
39, 48-50
14, 26, 30,
51-53
14, 26, 30, 54,
55

Texas
Texas
Texas
Texas
Texas
Texas

Levelland

San Andres

Dolomite

12,0

3,8

4900,0

30,0

2,3

105,0

Texas

North Cowden

Grayburg/San Andres

Dolomite

12,0

5,0

4300,0

34,0

1,6

94,0

San Andres

Limestone

9,0

5,0

5100,0

32,0

1,3

110,0

San Andres

Dolomite

10,0

4,0

5000,0

31,0

--

108,0

30

San Andres

Limestone/Dolomite

10,8

2,0

4900,0

31,0

1,4

105,0

26, 30, 56

San Andres

Dolomite

10,5

4,3

5000,0

28,0

1,7

105,0

San Andres
San Andres

Limestone/Dolomite
Dolomite

10,0
10,0

4,0
1,5

4950,0
5100,0

31,0
32,0

1,4
2,0

105,0
105,0

30, 36, 39,

57-60
26, 30, 54
26, 30, 61

Devonian

Dolomite

12,0

14,4

8500,0

43,0

0,5

140,0

14, 20, 22, 62

Texas
Texas
Texas
Texas
Texas
Texas
Texas

Wasson (ODC
Unit)
Slaughter (HT
Boyd Lease)
Slaughter
(Central Mallet)
Slaughter Estate
Unit (SEU)
Slaughter Frazier
Wasson-Willard
University
Waddell

Table 1. Examples of Carbon Dioxide Floods (Continuous or WAG) in U.S. Carbonate Reservoirs (Cont.)

Dolomite
Dolomite

%
11,6
10,0

K
md
1,5
10,0

Depth
ft.
3850,0
4200,0

Gravity
API
31,0
32,0

Oil Visc.
cp.
2,3
1,2

Temp.
F
86,0
94,0

Canyon Reef

Limestone

9,4

19,4

6700,0

41,0

0,4

130,0

San Andres
San Andres
San Andres

Limestone
Dolomite
Carbonate

9,3
16,0
13,0

9,0
5,0
3,0

4890,0
3180,0
4100,0

34,0
33,0
35,0

2,2
2,5
1,0

96,0
104,0
100,0

14, 20, 63
14, 28, 20, 64
14, 36, 39,
65-67
20, 30, 68, 69
14, 25, 27, 70
14, 30, 71-73

San Andres

Dolomite

8,6

2,0

4500,0

33,0

1,0

106,0

14, 28, 30, 74

San Andres
San Andres
San Andres

Dolomite
Dolomite
Dolomite

13,0
10,0
10,0

6,0
3,0
3,0

5100,0
5400,0
5000,0

33,0
30,0
32,0

1,0
3,0
2,0

110,0
101,0
107,0

30
30
30

San Andres

Dolomite

12,5

6,0

4900,0

32,0

1,0

110,0

28, 30, 75, 76

Canyon Reef

Limestone

10,0

150,0

6600,0

40,0

1,0

125,0

San Andres

Dolomite

9,0

20,0

4300,0

29,0

6,0

97,0

Canyon

Limestone

20,0

12,0

6300,0

39,0

1,0

125,0

Hanford

San Andres

Dolomite

10,5

4,0

5500,0

32,0

1,4

104,0

Hanford East
West Brahaney
Unit
East Penwell
(SA) Unit
Garza
Welch (North &
South)
Crossett
Wasson (Bennett
Ranch)
Wasson (Denver
Unit)

San Andres

Dolomite

10,0

4,0

5500,0

32,0

1,0

106,0

28, 30, 77, 78

26, 30, 36, 39,
79, 80
14, 28, 30, 81
26, 28, 30, 36,
39, 82
30

San Andres

Dolomite

10,0

2,0

5300,0

33,0

2,0

108,0

27

San Andres

Dolomite

10,0

4,0

4000,0

34,0

2,0

86,0

14, 28, 30

San Andres

Carbonate

18,0

5,0

3000,0

36,0

3,0

80,0

San Andres

Dolomite

11,0

4,0

4900,0

34,0

2,0

98,0

Devonian

Limestone

22,0

5,0

5300,0

44,0

0,4

106,0

14, 20, 83
14, 28, 30, 84,
85
14, 19, 22

San Andres

Carbonate

13,0

10,0

4900,0

32,0

1,4

107,0

14, 18, 30, 86

San Andres

Dolomite

12,0

5,0

5200,0

33,0

1,3

105,0

14, 22, 30, 36,

39, 87, 88
14, 22, 36, 39,
89

Location

Field

Pay zone/Reservoir

Formation

Texas
Texas

San Andres
San Andres

Texas

McElroy
Goldsmith
Kelly Snyder
(SACROC Unit)
South Welch
Huntley
South Cowden
Wasson (Cornell
Unit)
Wasson
GMK South
Slaughter
Slaughter (East
Mallet)
Sharon Ridge
Means (San
Andres)
Salt Creek

Texas
Texas

Texas
Texas
Texas
Texas
Texas
Texas
Texas
Texas
Texas
Texas
Texas

Texas
Texas
Texas
Texas
Texas
Texas
Texas

Ref.

Texas

Wasson South

Clearfork

Carbonate

6,0

2,0

6700,0

33,0

1,2

105,0

Texas

Reinecke

Cisco Canyon Reef

Limestone/Dolom
ite

10,4

170,0

6700,0

43,5

0,4

139,0

28, 20, 90, 91

Texas

Slaughter
Sundown (SSU)

San Andres

Dolomite

11,0

6,0

4950,0

33,0

1,0

105,0

28, 30, 36, 39,

92, 93

Table 1. Examples of Carbon Dioxide Floods (Continuous or WAG) in U.S. Carbonate Reservoirs (Cont.)

Dolomite
Limestone

%
9,0
9,2

K
md
4,0
100,0

Depth
ft.
4700,0
9800,0

Gravity
API
32,0
43,5

Oil Visc.
cp.
2,3
0,5

Temp.
F
104,0
151,0

25, 30, 94, 95

14, 23, 96, 97

Clearfork

Dolomite

11,5

4,0

6500,0

40,0

--

113,0

30

Devonian

Dolomite

13,5

17,0

8000,0

39,5

0,4

125,0

Location

Field

Pay zone/Reservoir

Formation

Texas
Texas

Mabee
Wellman
Dollarhide
(Clearfork Unit)
Dollarhide
(Devonian Unit)

San Andres
Wolfcamp

Texas

Ref.

Texas

Sable

San Andres

Dolomite

8,4

2,0

5200,0

32,0

1,0

107,0

Texas

Cogdell
T-Star (Slaughter
Consolidated)
Aneth
Greater Aneth
Area

Canyon Reef

Limestone

13,0

6,0

6800,0

40,0

0.7

130,0

30, 36, 39, 98,

99
14, 25, 27,
100
30, 101

Abo

Dolomite

7,0

2,0

7850,0

28,0

1,9

134,0

30

Ismay Desert Creek

Limestone

14,0

5,0

5600,0

41,0

1,0

125,0

Desert Creek

Limestone

12,0

18,3

5700,0

42,0

1,5

129,0

28, 30, 102

28, 30, 103,
104

Greenbrier

Limestone/Dolomite

14,0

3,0

1950,0

42,0

1,7

77,0

Texas

Texas
Utah
Utah
West
Virginia

Hilly Upland

105, 106

Table 2. Examples of In-Situ Combustion projects in U.S. Carbonate Reservoirs

Location

Field

Pay zone/Reservoir

Formation

K
md

Depth
ft.

Gravity
API

Oil Visc.
cp.

Temp.
F

Ref.

North
Dakota

Horse Creek

Red River

Dolomite

16,0

20,0

9500,0

32,0

1,4

198,0

122, 124

North
Dakota

Medicine Pole
Hills

Red River B & C

Dolomite

18,9

15,0

9500,0

38,0

1,0

230,0

28, 30,
123, 125,
126

North
Dakota
North
Dakota
South
Dakota
South
Dakota
South
Dakota

West Medicine
Pole Unit
Cedar Hills North
Unit

Red River B & C

Dolomite

17,0

10,0

9500,0

33,0

2,0

215,0

30, 126

Red River

Dolomite

16.0

6.0

8300.0

30.0

2.9

200.0

14, 30,
123, 127

Buffalo

Red River B

Dolomite

20,0

10,0

8450,0

31,0

2,0

215,0

28, 30,
123, 126

West Buffalo

Red River B

Dolomite

20,0

10,0

8450,0

32,0

2,0

215,0

28, 30,
123, 126

South Buffalo

Red River B

Dolomite

20,0

10,0

8450,0

31,0

2,0

215,0

28, 30,
123, 126

Table 3. Examples of miscible and immiscible nitrogen floods (Continuous or WAG) in U.S. Carbonate Reservoirs

Limestone

%
12.0

K
md
5.0

Depth
ft.
8600.0

Gravity
API
46.0

Oil Visc.
cp.
0.3

Temp.
F
130.0

14, 27, 130-132

Smackover

Dolomite

12.4

10.0

18500.0

54.0

0.0

325.0

27, 133

Smackover
Ellenburger

Carbonate
Dolomite

17.0
3.8

105.0
2000.0

16150.0
8835.0

50.0
44.0

0.3
0.6

290.0
132.0

Smackover

Limestone

14.0

35.0

15400.0

51.0

0.2

285.0

Grayburg/San Andres

Dolomite

17.0

175.0

1400.0

30.0

6.0

82.0

20, 21, 134-135

23, 24,136
23-30, 36, 39,
137-140
24-30, 129, 141

Location

Field

Pay zone/Reservoir

Formation

Texas

Block 31
Chunchula
Fieldwide Unit
Blackjack Creek
Andector
Jay-Little Escambia
Creek
Yates

Devonian

Alabama
Florida
Texas
Fla./Alab.
Texas

Ref.

Table 4. Examples hydrocarbon injection projects (Continuous or WAG) in U.S. Carbonate Reservoirs

Dolomite

%
22.0

K
md
12.0

Depth
ft.
15900.0

Gravity
API
54.0

Oil Visc.
cp.
--

Temp.
F
293.0

7, 144

Madison

Limestone

11.0

0.1

8500.0

42.0

11.0

135

16, 19

Red Wing Creek

Mission Canyon

Limestone

10.0

0.1

9000.0

40.0

--

241.0

7, 27, 145

Levelland
Slaughter
McElroy

San Andres
San Andres
San Andres

Dolomite
Dolomite
Dolomite

10.2
10.5
11.6

2.0
4.3
1.5

4900.0
5000.0
3856.0

30.0
28.0
31.0

2.3
1.9
2.3

105.0
105.0
86.0

Texas

Fairway

James

Limestone

12.6

11.0

9900.0

48.0

--

260.0

Texas

Wolfcamp Univ.
Block 9

Wolfcamp

Limestone

10.2

14.0

8400.0

38.0

0.3

140.0

7, 14, 25, 146

14, 20, 147
14, 19
7, 14, 16, 27,
36,
14, 36, 148,
149

Location

Field

Pay zone/Reservoir

Formation

Alabama
North
Dakota
North
Dakota
Texas
Texas
Texas

Chatom

Smackover Lime

Carlson

Ref.

Table 5. Examples of steamfloods in U.S. Carbonate Reservoirs

Location

Field

Pay zone/Reservoir

Formation

K
md

Depth
ft.

Gravity
API

Oil Visc.
cp.

Temp.
F

Texas

Yates

Grayburg/San Andres

Dolomite

17.0

175.0

1400.0

30.0

6.0

82.0

Wyoming

Garland

Madison

Limestone/Dolomite

15.5

10.0

4250.0

22.0

29.0

140.0

Ref.
30, 141, 153,
157, 158
153, 155-156

Table 6. Examples of chemical floods in U.S. Carbonate Reservoirs: 1960s 1990

K
md
36,0

Depth
ft.

Limestone

%
26,7

Limestone

47,3

358,0

Limestone
Limestone
Limestone
Carbonate
Limestone

18,4
15,5
12,5
16,0
13,0

150,1
19,7

San Andres

Dolomite

10,6

Vacuum

Grayburg/San Andres

Dolomite

Vacuum

San Andres

Blue Buttes

Gravity
API
21,0

Oil Visc.
cp.
11,0

Temp.
F
185,0

2050,0

39,5

4,0

83,0

21, 22

3215,0
3700,0
3130,0
5300,0
4100,0

38,0
42,0
38,6
34,9
31,0

1,4
0,6
3,7
2,5
9,0

97,0
117,0
105,0
178,0
120,0

14, 23
21, 22
25
14, 19, 162
22

21,0

4700,0

37,0

1,5

100,0

15, 162

11,5

17,3

4500,0

37,0

1,2

101,0

20, 162, 165

Dolomite

11,6

8,5

4720,0

38,0

1,5

105,0

21, 23

Madison

Limestone

9,6

22,0

9400,0

42,0

0,3

240,0

21, 22

Viola
Cromwell 60, Hunton,
Viola
Kansas City
Cromwell, Viola, Hunton
Burbank
Miss. Chat
San Andres

Limestone
Limestone /
Sandstone
Limestone
Carbonate
Carbonate
Limestone
Dolomite

13,6

18,5

3900,0

39,0

3,2

119,0

14, 21, 162

17,5

6,6

3250,0

40,0

4,0

115,0

20, 22, 162

Oklahoma
Oklahoma
Oklahoma
Oklahoma
Texas

Fitts
Fitts
(E. Fittts Unit)
Balko South
Fitts
Stanley
Osage-Hominy
C-Bar

21,0
17,5
18,0
30,0
10,0

535,0
750,5
300,0
27,0
6,0

6100,0
3250,0
3000,0
2880,0
3350,0

40,0
40,0
39,0
38,7
36,0

1,8
4,0
3,0
5,0

125,0
115,0
105,0
100,0
107,0

Texas

Dune

San Andres

Dolomite

14,0

28,0

3350,0

32,0

3,5

95,0

Texas
Texas
Texas
Texas
Texas
Texas

Goldsmith 5600
McElroy
Garza
Westbrook
Lucy N.
Salt Creek
Stephens County
Regular
Slaughter
S. Robertson
Cogdell
Levelland

Clearfork
Grayburg
San Andres
Clearfork
Pennsylvanian
Canyon Reef

Dolomite
Dolomite
Limestone
Dolomite
Limestone
Limestone

15,0
13,0
19,8
7,4
9,7
12,0

28,0
37,0
4,1
6,3
30,0
13,2

5600,0
2800,0
2900,0
3000,0
7640,0
6300,0

32,0
32,0
36,0
26,0
40,0
39,2

3,5
2,7
2,5
9,1
0,4
0,9

100,0
88,0
90,0
90,0
140,0
129,0

Caddo (ECU)

Limestone

13,2

9,0

3200,0

39,0

2,7

113,0

San Andres
Glorieta/Clearfork
Canyon Reef
San Andres

Dolomite
Dolomite
Limestone
Dolomite

11,2
7,9
9,6
10,0

6,0
38,6
5,0
0,6

5000,0
5800,0
6800,0
4720,0

31,0
34,0
41,7
30,5

1,5
1,0
0,6
1,5

110,0
107,0
128,0
107,0

20, 22
21, 23, 162
14, 17, 162
25
20, 21
14, 23, 162,
166
14, 21, 167
14, 21, 168
14, 20, 162
20, 23, 162
21, 23
14, 23, 169
20, 23, 159,
160, 162, 170
14, 21, 162
19, 21, 22
20, 22
14, 20

Location

Field

Pay zone/Reservoir

Formation

Arkansas

Wesgum (a)

IIIinois

Tonti

Kansas
Kansas
Kansas
Louisiana
Nebraska
New
Mexico
New
Mexico
New
Mexico
North
Dakota
Oklahoma

Trapp
Bates Unit
Harmony Hill
Old Lisbon
Dry Creek

Smackover
Renoist Auxvases
McClusky
Lansing/Kansas City
Mississippi
Lansing/Kansas City
Pettit
Lansing/Kansas City

Vacuum

Oklahoma

Texas
Texas
Texas
Texas
Texas

(a) Micellar polymer flood

45,0

Ref.
21

Table 6. Examples of chemical floods in U.S. Carbonate Reservoirs: 1960s 1990 (Cont.)
Location

Field

Pay zone/Reservoir

Formation

K
md

Depth
ft.

Gravity
API

Texas
Texas
Texas
Texas
Texas
Texas
Texas
Texas
Texas
Texas
Texas
Texas
Texas
Texas
Texas
Texas
Texas
Texas
Texas
Texas
Utah
Wyoming
Wyoming
Wyoming
Wyoming

Cowden North
Mabee
Jordan
McElroy
Penwell
Harris
Dollarhide (Clearfork)
South Cowden
Smyer
North Riley
Salt Creek
Headlee North
Foster
Wichita County Reg. (a)
Stephens County Regular
Bob Slaughter Block (a)
Robertson
Sand Hills
McCamey
Keystone
Aneth Unit
Byron
Grass Creek
Oregon Basin
Oregon Basin

Grayburg/San Andres
San Andres
San Andres
Grayburg/San Andres
San Andres
Glorieta
Clearfork
Grayburg
Clearfork
Clearfork
Canyon Reef
Headlee North
San Andres
Gunsight
Caddo Lime
San Andres
Clearfork
Tubb
Grayburg-San Andres
Colby
Paradox
Embar/Tensleep
Phosphoria
North Embar
South Embar

Lime./Dolomite
Dolomite
Dolomite
Dolomite
Dolomite
Dolomite
Dolomite
Dolomite
Carbonate
Carbonate
Limestone
Limestone
Dolomite
Carbonate
Limestone
Dolomite
Carbonate
Carbonate
Carbonate
Dolomite
Limestone
Limestone/Sand.
Carbonate
Limestone
Limestone

10,1
10,5
10,5
11,0
11,0
8,6
11,6
13,0
8,3
7,7
12,0
4,1
12,0
22,0
14,5
12,0
7,8
12,0
14,0
12,0
10,6
13,9
21,6
20,2
19,5

3,8
1,5
6,0
5,0
2,2
3,0
8,5
3,1
10,5
12,0
20,0
0,3
5,8
53,0
12,0
5,9
2,0
27,0
18,0
5,0
18,3
41,3
20,0
68,0
39,0

4450,0
4700,0
3600,0
3000,0
3800,0
5818,0
6500,0
4500,0
5900,0
6300,0
6500,0
12000,0
4200,0
1750,0
3200,0
5000,0
6450,0
4500,0
2100,0
3300,0
5300,0
5600,0
4300,0
3370,0
3600,0

34,0
32,0
34,0
32,0
32,0
30,8
37,0
34,0
27,0
32,0
39,0
47,0
34,0
42,0
40,0
31,4
34,0
35,0
26,0
37,0
47,0
23,0
24,0
22,5
20,9

Oil
Visc.
cp.
1,6
2,4
2,8
2,6
4,5
3,1
0,6
3,5
5,0
2,6
6,0
0,7
1,2
2,2
2,3
1,3
1,1
2,5
28,0
6,0
0,6
17,0
15,0
9,8
15,7

Gravity
API
30.0
30.0

Oil Visc.
cp.
6.0
2.8

Temp.
F

Ref.

94,0
106,0
95,0
95,0
108,0
115,0
110,0
103,0
112,0
104,0
130,0
190,0
101,0
89,0
106,0
109,0
110,0
148,0
80,0
87,0
134,0
121,0
105,0
108,0
110,0

14, 21
20, 22, 162
21, 22, 166
14, 20
14, 21
14, 20
14, 21
14, 21
21, 22
14, 21
14, 20
20
14, 20
14, 20
17, 162
16, 17, 159, 171
14, 19, 162
14, 15, 162
14, 15, 162
14, 15, 162
21, 22
14, 159, 172-174
14, 24, 162
14, 24
14, 21, 24

(a) Micellar polymer flood

Table 7. Examples of chemical floods in U.S. Carbonate Reservoirs: 1990s 2000s
Location

Field

Pay zone/Reservoir

Formation

Texas
Wyoming

Yates
Cottonwood Creek

San Andres
Phosphoria

Dolomite
Limestone

%
15.0
10.4

K
md
100.0
16.0

Depth
ft.
1400.0
7900.0

Temp.
F
82.0
150.0

Ref.
193-196
2, 8, 28-30, 188

7
1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

References
Roehl, P. O. and Choquette, P. W.
Carbonate Petroleum Reservoirs, New
York, Springer-Verlag, 1985.
Allan, J., and Qing Sun, S. Controls on
Recovery Factor in Fractured Reservoirs:
Lessons Learned from 100 Fractured
Fields (SPE-84590). SPE Annual
Tech.Conf. and Exhibition. Denver,
Colorado. Oct. 2003.
Carr T. R.; Green D. W.; Willhite G. P.
Improved Oil Recovery in Mississippian
Carbonate Reservoirs of Kansas - Near
Term - Class II: Final Report (Sept. 16,
1994-April 30, 2001) Kansas Univ., US
DOE
Fossil
Energy,
Rep.
No
DOE/BC/14987-16. (141 PP), 2001.
Graue A.; Moe R. W.; Bogno T. Impacts
of wettability on oil recovery in fractured
carbonate reservoirs. Bergen Univ. Soc.
Core Annual. Int. Symp. (Abu Dhabi,
United Arab Emirates, 10/18-22/2000)
PROC 2000 (SCA 2000-25), 2000.
Benson D. J.; Mancini E. A.; Groshong R.
H.; Fang J. H.; Carlson E. S. Alabama
Carbonate Reservoir Characterization and
Management: Key to Improved Oil
Recovery at Appleton Oil Field, Escambia
County, Alabama Univ. Annual AAPG
Conv. (Salt Lake City, UT, 5/17-20/98)
Extended Abs. No A57 V 1, 1998.
Wardlaw N. C. Factors Affecting Oil
Recovery from Carbonate Reservoirs and
Prediction of Recovery. Calgary Univ.
Carbonate Reservoir Characterization: A
Geologic Engineering Analysis, Part II.
Elsevier Science BV, 1996.
Nuckols, E. B. A Review of ShallowShelf Carbonate Reservoirs in the United
States. Rep. No. DOE/BC/14839 (205
PP), 1992.
Xie, X., Weiss, W. W., Tong, Z., Morrow,
N. R. Improved Oil Recovery from
Carbonate Reservoirs by Chemical
Stimulation
(SPE-89424).
2004
SPE/DOE 14th Symp. on IOR. Tulsa, April
2004.

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.
15.

16.

17.
18.

19.
20.

21.

22.

23.

Seethepalli, B. Adibhatla, K. K. Mohanty.

Wettability Alteration During Surfactant
Flooding of Carbonate Reservoirs (SPE89423). 2004 SPE/DOE 14th Symp. on
IOR. Tulsa, 17-21 April 2004.
Moritis, G. Point of View: CO2 Geological
Sequestration Opens Opportunities for
Permian Basin. O&GJ, V 102, No. 1, pp
39-41, 1/5/2004.
E. Lance Cole. Field Application
Underscore Potential of IOR Tools,
Techniques. The American Oil & Gas
Reporter (pp. 101-106), February 2003.
Moritis, G. CO2 Sequestration Adds New
Dimension to Oil, Gas Production. O&GJ,
V 101, No. 9, pp 39-44, 3/3/2003.
Dutton S. P., Kim E. M., Breton C. L.,
Broadhead R. F., Raatz W. D. Digital Play
Portfolio of a Major U.S. Oil Province:
The Permian Basin. Texas Bureau Econ.
Geol., New Mexico Bureau GMR. Annual
AAPG-SEPM Conv. (Dallas, TX, 4/1821/2004. Proceeding pp A38-A39, 2004.
Tertiary Oil Recovery Information System
- TORIS Database. DOE/NETL.
Bleakley, W. B. Production Report.
Enhanced Oil Recovery. Oil & Gas
Journal. March 25, 1974.
Noran, D. Enhanced Oil Recovery action
is worldwide. Production Report. Oil &
Gas Journal. April 5, 1976.
Noran, D. Annual Production Issue. Oil
& Gas Journal. March 27, 1978.
Matheny, Shannon L. Production Report.
Enhanced Oil Recovery. Oil & Gas
Journal. March 31, 1980.
Leonard, J. Annual Production Report.
Oil & Gas Journal. April 5, 1982.
Leonard, J. Annual Production Report.
Enhanced Oil Recovery. Oil & Gas
Journal. April 2, 1984.
Leonard, J. Production/Enhanced Oil
Recovery Report. Oil & Gas Journal.
April 24, 1986.
Aalund, L. R. Annual Production
Report. Oil & Gas Journal. April 18,
1988.
Moritis, G. Annual Production Report.
Oil & Gas Journal. April 23, 1990.

24.

25.
26.
27.

28.

29.

30.

31.

32.

33.

34.

35.

36.

Moritis, G. EOR increases 24%

worldwide; claims 10% of U.S.
production. Annual Production Report.
Oil & Gas Journal. April 20, 1992.
Moritis, G. EOR Production Report. Oil
& Gas Journal. April 1994.
Moritis, G. Oil Production Report. Oil
& Gas Journal. April 1996.
Moritis, G. EOR Oil Production Up
Slightly. Report on Enhanced Oil
Recovery. Oil & Gas Journal. April 20,
1998.
Moritis, G. Report on Enhanced Oil
Recovery. Oil & Gas Journal. April 15,
2000.
Moritis, G. Report on Enhanced Oil
Recovery. Oil & Gas Journal. April 15,
2002.
Moritis, G. EOR Continues to Unlock Oil
Resources. Report on Enhanced Oil
Recovery. Oil & Gas Journal. April 12,
2004.
Central Kansas miscible CO2 pilot
funded. Oil & Gas Journal V 97, No 47,
P 70, 11/22/1999.
Dubois M. K.; Byrnes A. P.; Watney W.
L. Field Development and Renewed
Reservoir characterization for CO2
Flooding of the Hall-Gurney Field,
Central Kansas. Annual aapg-September
Convention. Denver, 6/3-6/2001. pp a53a54.
Lingane, P. J; McWilliams, R. E.;
Pittaway, K. R. First Results from the
Maljamar Carbon Dioxide Pilot. 4th
SPE/DOE EOR Symposium. Tulsa, 4/1618/1984. (SPE-12666).
Pittaway, K. R; Albright J. C, Hoover, J.
W. The Maljamar Carbon Dioxide Pilot:
Review and Results (SPE-14940).
Permian Basin Oil & Gas Recovery
Conference. Midland, TX, 3/13-14/1986.
Moore, J. S; Clark, G. C. History Match
of the Maljamar CO2 pilot performance
(SPE-17323).
6th
SPE/DOE
EOR
Symposium. Tulsa, 4/17-20/1988.
Christensen J. R; Stenby E. H; Skauge A.
Review of WAG Field Experience
(SPE-39883). SPE International Petroleum
Conference of Mexico. Villahermosa,
1998.

37.

38.

39.

40.

41.

42.

43.

44.

45.

Newmark, R. L; Ramirez, A. L; Daily, W.

D.
Monitoring
Carbon
Dioxide
Sequestration using Electrical Resistance
Tomography: Sensitivity Studies. First
National
Energy
and
Technology
Laboratory Carbon Sequestration National
Conference. Washington, DC 5/1417/2001.pp18.
Brownlee, M. H; Sugg, L. A. East
Vacuum Grayburg-San Andres Unit CO2
Injection Project: Development and
Results to date (SPE-16721). 62nd Annual
SPE Technology Conference. Dallas,
1987.
Christensen, J. R; Stenby, E. H; Skauge,
A. Review of WAG (Water Alternating
Gas) field experience. SPEREE, V4, No
2, pp 97-106. April 2001.
Wehner, S. C.; Raines, M. A; Davis, T. L;
Benson, R. D. Dynamic reservoir
characterization at Central Vacuum Unit
(SPE-63134). Annual SPE Tech. Conf.
Dallas, TX, 2000.
Duranti, L; Davis, T. L. Multi
Seismology for time-lapse Analysis. 64th
EAGE Conf.. Florence, Italy, 5/2730/2002. V 1. Paper No H-05, 2002.
Desch, J. B; Larsen, W.K; Lindsay, R.F;
Nettle, R.L. Enhanced Oil Recovery by
CO2 miscible displacement in the Little
Knife Field, Billings County, North
Dakota (SPE-10696). 3rd Joint SPE/DOE
EOR Symp. Tulsa, 1982.
Thakur, G. C; Lin, C. .J.; Patel, Y. R.
CO2 Minitest, Little Knife Field: A case
history (SPE-12704). 4th SPE/DOE EOR
Symp. Tulsa, 1984.
McNeely, M.; Payton, J.; Giraud, M.;
Winfield, M.; Funk, T. ESP (Electric
Submersible Pump) Failure Reductions in
a field with CO2 flood. 19th Annual SPE
Gulf Coast Section, Electric Submersible
Pump Workshop. Houston, TX, 4/2527/2001.
Cobb, B. Target reservoirs for CO2
miscible flooding Rep. U.S. Department
of Energy No DOE/MC-08341-31,
October 1981. pp 336.

46.

47.

48.

49.

50.

51.

52.

53.

54.

Sonnenfeld, M. D; Canter, L; Meng, H. Z;

Wingate, T. P; Zahm, L. C. Operational
Sequence Stratigraphy for 3-D Reservoir
Modeling of Seminole Andres Unit
(SSAU), Permian Basin, West Texas.
Annual AAPG-SEPM Meeting, Salt Lake
City, UT, 5/11-14/2003.
Wood, N. V; O'Brien J. V; Schaffert, F.
W. Seminole CO2-flood Gas plant has
successful early operations Oil & Gas
Journal V84, No 46. pp 50-52,54,
11/17/1986.
Pitts, P. Tertiary pilots at LevellandSlaughter evaluate processes to boost
recovery Drill Bit V26, No 11.
November 1977. pp 37-39.
Brannan, G; Whitington, H.M. Enriched
Gas Miscible flooding: A case history of
the Levelland Unit secondary miscible
project (SPE-5826). SPE of AIME MidContinent Sec. Improved Oil Recovery
Symp., 1976.
Graham B. D.; Bowen, J. F; Duane, N.C;
Warden G.D. Design and Implementation
of a Levelland Unit CO2 tertiary pilot
(SPE-8831). 1st SPE/DOE EOR Symp.
Tulsa, 4/20-23/80.
Byars, C. Carbon Dioxide Grows as
Recovery Tool. Oil & Gas Journal V70,
No 32. 8/7/1972. pp. 22-24.
Lines, L.; Tan, H.; Treitel, S.; Beck, J.;
Chambers, R.; Eager, J.; Savage, C.;
Queen, J.; Rizer, W. Integrated Reservoir
Characterization: Beyond Tomography
(SPE-28385). 69th Annual SPE Tech
Conf., New Orleans, 9/25-28/1994. pp.
229-234.
Chambers, R. L.; Tan, H.; Eager, J.; Ross,
M.; Mansoori, J.; Vassiliou, A.; Barron,
P.; Rizer, W.; Queen, J. Integrated
Reservoir
Characterization:
A
Collaborative Study in a West Texas
Carbonate/Clastic Reservoir. Annual
AAPG-SEPM, Denver, 6/12-15/1994. pp
119-120.
Linn, L. R. CO2 Injection and Production
field facilities design evaluation and
considerations (SPE-16830). Annual SPE
Tech Conf. Dallas, 9/27-30/1987.

55.

56.

57.

58.

59.

60.

61.

62.

63.

64.

Konecki, M. L.; Bullock, G. W.; Wood, T.

B. Enhanced Oil Recovery Gas
Processing: An Integrated Operational
Approach. 67th Annual Gas Processors
ASS Convention. Dallas, 3/14-16/1988.
pp. 158-168
Honnert, M. A.; Vavrek, G.; Creel, P.;
Kelley R. A.; Tate, R. Conformance
Solutions Enhanced CMU (Central Mallet
Unit) Oil & Gas Reporter V45, No 2.,
February 2002. pp. 109-113, 115-117.
Rowe, H.G; York, S.D; Ader, J.C.
Slaughter Estate Unit Tertiary Pilot
Performance (SPE-9796). 2nd Joint
SPE/DOE EOR Symp. Tulsa, 4/5-8/1981.
Ader, J. C.; Stein, M. H. Slaughter Estate
Unit CO2 Pilot reservoir description via a
black oil model waterflood history match
(SPE-10727). 3rd Joint SPE/DOE EOR
Symp. Tulsa, 4/4-7/1982.
Stein, M. H.; Frey, D. D.; Walker, R. D.;
Pariani, G. J. The Slaughter Estate Unit
CO2 flood: A Comparison between pilot
and field-scale performance (SPE19375). SPE Permian Basin & TransPecos Sect Oil & Gas Recovery Conf.
Midland, TX, 3/8-9/1990.
Merchant, D. H.; Thakur, S. C. Reservoir
management in tertiary CO2 floods (SPE26624). 68th Annual SPE Tech Conf.
Houston, 10/3-6/1993.
Brock, M. E.; Trice, B. Automation
Maximizes Arco's West Texas CO2
Project. World Oil, V214. No 11. pp 6162, 64. Nov 1993.
Smith, J. E. History match and
projections of future water and CO2 flood
recoveries - Southwest Garza Unit, Garza
County, Texas. Permian Basin Res. Conf.
Midland, TX, 10/7-9/1986. PBS-SEPM
Publication No 86-26. pp 21-30.
Hwang, R. J.; Ortiz, J. Effect of CO2
flood on geochemistry of McElroy.
Organic Geochemistry, V29, No 1-3. pp
485-503. 1998.
Jasek, D. E.; Frank, J. R.; Mathis, L. S.;
Smith, D. J. Goldsmith San Andres Unit
CO2 Pilot - Design, Implementation, and
Early Performance (SPE-48945). Annual
SPE Tech Conf. New Orleans, 9/2730/1998.

65.

66.

67.

68.

69.

70.

71.

Langston, M. V.; Hoadley, S. F.; Young,

D. N. Definitive CO2 flooding response
in the SACROC (Scurry Area Canyon
Reef Operators Committee) Unit. (SPE17321). 6th SPE/DOE EOR Symp. Tulsa,
4/17-20/1988.
Hawkin, J. T.; Benvegnu, A. J.; Wingate,
T. P.; Mckamie, J. D.; Pickard, C. D.;
Altum, J. T. SACROC Unit Carbon
Dioxide Flood - Multidisciplinary Team
Improves Reservoir Management and
Decreases Operating Costs (SPE-35359).
10th SPE/DOE IOR Symp. Tulsa, 4/2124/1996.
Kane, A. V. Performance review of a
large scale CO2-WAG project SACROC
Unit-Kelly Snyder field (SPE-7091). 5th
SPE of AIME Midcontinent Sect.
Improved Methods for Oil Recovery
Symp., 1978.
Keeling, R, J. CO2 miscible flooding
evaluation of the South Welch Unit,
Welch San Andres Field (SPE-12664).
4th SPE/DOE EOR Symp. Tulsa, 4/1618/84.
Hill, W. J.; Tinney, T. J.; Stark, K. L.;
Young, L. C. CO2 Operating plan, South
Welch Unit, Dawson County, Texas
(SPE-27676). SPE Permian Basin Oil &
Gas Recovery Conf. Midland, TX, 3/1618/1994.
Mcnutt, P. B.; Pittaway, K. R.; Rosato, R.
J.; Beamer, R. E. A probabilistic
forecasting method for the Huntley CO2
projects (SPE-27762). 9th SPE/DOE IOR
Symp. Tulsa, 4/17-20/1994.
Dollens, K. B.; Shoumaker, J. C.;
Johannessen, O.; Wylie, B. W.; Rice, P.
The evaluation of two different methods
of obtaining injection profiles in CO2
WAG (Water- Alternating-Gas) horizontal
injection wells (SPE-37470). SPE Prod
Oper Symp. Oklahoma City, 3/9-11/1997.

72.

73.

74.

75.

76.

77.

78.

Green, C.; Creel, P.; McDonald, S.; Ryan,

T. Utilization of a crystallized hydrating
copolymer to modify an injectivity
problem in a horizontal CO2 WAG (Water
Alternating Gas) injector in the South
Cowden Unit, Ector County, Texas -PostTreatment
Coil Tubing
Acidizing
Stimulation: Case History. 50th Annual
Southwestern Petroleum Short Course.
Lubbock, TX, 4/16-17/2003.
Owen, R.; Robertson, C. R.; Harpole, K.
J.; Durrett, E. Design and implementation
of a CO2 flood utilizing advanced
reservoir characterization and horizontal
injection wells in a shallow shelf
carbonate
approaching
waterflood
depletion. US DOE Fossil Energy Rep No
DOE/BC 14991-14. Jan 1999.
Todd, M. R.; Cobb, W. M.; McCarter, E.
D. CO2 flood performance evaluation for
the Cornell Unit, Wasson San Andres
field (SPE-10292). 56th Annual SPE of
AIME Fall Tech Conf. San Antonio, TX,
10/5-7/1981.
Gould, J.; Wackler, J.; Quirein, J.;
Watson, J. CO2 monitor logging East
Mallet Unit, Slaughter field, Hockley
County, Texas. 32nd Annual SPWLA
Logging Symp. Midland, TX, 6/1619/1991.
Drozd, J. W.; Gould, J. East Mallet Unit
CO2 flood log monitoring program,
Slaughter field, Hockley County, Texas.
West Texas Geol Soc Permian Basin Plays
- Tomorrow's Technol Today Symp.
Midland, TX, 10/31/91-11/1/91. WTGS
Publication No 91-89.
Brinkman, F. P.; Kane, T. V.;
McCullough, R. R.; Miertschin, J. W.
Use of full-field simulation to design a
miscible CO2 flood (SPE-39629). SPE
Permian Basin Oil & Gas Recovery Conf.
Midland, TX, 3/23-26/1998.
Yuan, M.; Mosley, J.; Hyer, N. Mineral
scale control in a CO2 flooded oilfield
(SPE-65029). SPE Oilfield Chem. Int.
Symposium, Houston, TX, 2/13-16/2001.

79.

80.

81.

82.

83.

84.

85.

86.

87.

88.

Stiles, L. H.; Chiquito, R. M.; George, C.

J.; Long, L. D. Design and Operation of a
CO2 Tertiary Pilot: Means San Andres
Unit (SPE-11987). 58th Annual SPE of
AIME Tech Conf. San Francisco, 10/58/1983.
Moore, D. Exxon pumps new life into old
field. Petrol Eng. Int. V57. No 1. pp. 2123. January, 1985.
Moshell, M. K. The Salt Creek CO2
Flood: A status report after one year of
operation. 42nd Annual Southwestern
Petrol Short Course Ass. Inc. et al Mtg.
Lubbock, TX, 4/19-20/1995.
Merritt, M. B.; Groce, J. F. A case
history of the Hanford San Andres
Miscible CO2 project (SPE-20229). 7th
SPE/DOE EOR Symp. Tulsa, 4/2225/1990.
Wash, R. Northern Permian Basin. Power
Plant to provide CO2 for Garza Field
project. Drill Bit V30. No 10. pp 78, 80.
Oct 1981.
Taylor, A. R.; Hinterlong, G. D.; Kumar,
K. H. CO2 Flood Simulation with an
equation of State and Mixed Wettability
(SPE-39808). SPE Permian Basin Oil &
Gas Recovery Conf. Midland, TX, 3/2326/1998.
Justice, J. H.; Woerpel, J. C.; Watts, G. P.
Interwell Seismic for CO2 Monitoring in
a DOE Class II Oil Project 70th Annual
Seg. Int. Mtg. Calgary, Canada, 8/611/2000.
Hsu, C. F.; Fitzgerald, M. A.; Musallam,
S. C.; McCray, T. L.; Purvis, W. D.
Design and implementation of a grassroots CO2 project for the Bennett Ranch
Unit (SPE-35188). SPE Permian Basin
Oil & Gas Recovery Conf. Midland, TX,
3/27-29/1996.
Tanner, C. S.; Baxley, P. T.; Crump, J. G.;
Miller, W. C. Production Performance of
the Wasson Denver Unit CO2 Flood
(SPE-24156). 8th SPE EOR Symp. Tulsa,
TX, 4/22-24/1992.
Wash, R. Shell's Project to Recover 280
MMBO. Drill Bit V33, No 9, pp 9-10.
Sept 1984.

89.

90.

91.

92.

93.

94.

95.

96.

Burbank, D. E. Early CO2 flood

experience at the South Wasson Clearfork
Unit (SPE-24160). 8th SPE/DOE EOR
Symp. Tulsa, 4/22-24/1992.
Saller, A. H.; Robertson, S.; Walden, S.;
Steckel, M.; Schwab, J.; Hagiwara, H.;
Mizohata, S. Reservoir Characterization
of a Reefal Carbonate for Crestal CO2
flood, Reinecke Field, West Texas. 19th
Annual September Gulf Coast Sect Bob F
Perkins Res. Conf. Houston, TX, 12/58/1999.
Odom, R.; Hogan, P.; Rogers, C.; Steckel,
F. M. A pulsed neutron analysis model
for Carbon Dioxide floods: Application to
the Reinecke field, West Texas (SPE59717). SPE Permian Basin Oil & Gas
Recovery Conf. Midland, TX, 3/2123/2000.
Folger, L. K.; Guillot, S. N. A case study
of the development of the Sundown
Slaughter Unit CO2 flood, Hockley
County, Texas (SPE-35189). SPE
Permian Basin Oil & Gas Recovery Conf.
Midland, TX, 3/27-29/1996.
Folger, L. K. Improved CO2 flood
predictions using 3D geologic description
and simulation on the Sundown Slaughter
Unit (SPE/DOE-35410). 10th SPE/DOE
IOR Symp. Tulsa, 4/21-24/1996.
Roper, M. K.; Pope, G. A.; Sepehrnoori,
K.; Cheng, C. T.; Varnon, J. E.
Interpretation of a CO2 WAG (Water
Alternating Gas) Injectivity test in the San
Andres formation using a compositional
simulator (SPE-24163). 8th SPE EOR
Symp. Tulsa, 4/22-24/1992.
Dull, D. W. Reservoir characterization
and the application of geostatistics to
three-dimensional modeling of a shallow
ramp carbonate, Mabee San Andres Field,
Andrews and Martin Counties, Texas
SEPM. Short Course No 34. Houston, 3/45/1995.
Bangia, V. K.; Yau, F. F.; Hendricks, G.
R. Reservoir Performance of a gravitystable vertical CO2 miscible flood:
Wolfcamp Reef Reservoir, Wellman Unit
(SPE-22898). SPE Permian Basin Oil &
Gas recovery Conf. Midland, TX, 3/1820/1992.

97.

98.

99.

100.

101.

102.

103.

104.

105.

Barile, J. H. R. Design and history

matching of a waterflood/miscible CO2
flood model of a mature field: the
Wellman Unit, West Texas. MSc Thesis,
Texas A&M Univ. College Station, TX,
2002. 207 pp.
Poole,
E.
S.
Evaluation
and
Implementation of CO2 Injection at the
Dollarhide Devonian Unit (SPE-17277).
SPE Permian Basin Oil & Gas Recovery
Conf. Midland, TX, 3/10-11/1988.
Bellavance, J. F. R. Dollarhide Devonian
miscible CO2 flood: project performance
review 10 years later (SPE-35190). SPE
Permian Basin Oil & Gas Recovery Conf.
Midland, TX, 3/27-29/1996.
Westerman, G. W. Sable Unit CO2
Injection
System
32nd
Annual
Southwestern Pet. Short Course Ass. et al
Mtg. Lubbock, TX, 4/23-25/1985.
Pennell, S.; Melzer, S. Oxy Permian's
Cogdell Unit CO2 injection World Oil
V224, No 6, pp 60, 62, 64, June 2003.
Hoefner, M. L.; Buckles, J. J.; Evans, E.
M.; Jones, T. A CO2 foam: results from
four developmental field trials (SPE27787). 9th SPE/DOE IOR Symp. Tulsa,
4/17-20/1994.
Dollens, K. B.; Larson, D. C.; Jones, T.
A.; Anthony, T. L.; Howell, D. A.;
Storbeck, W. G. The redevelopment of a
mature waterflood through the application
of horizontal multi-lateral drilling
technology in preparation for tertiary CO2
WAG operations. Annual AAPG-SEPM
Conv. New Orleans, 4/16-19/2000.
Hindi, R; Christianson, B. Aneth Unit
Reliability Engineering Lease Review.
48th Annual Southwestern Pet. Short
Course Ass Inc. et al Mtg. Lubbock, TX,
4/25-26/2001.
Watts, R. J.; Evans, D. M.; Locke, C. D.;
Gehr, J..A.; Wasson J. A. A single CO2
Injection well minitest in a lowpermeability eastern carbonate reservoir:
A preliminary report (SPE-9430). 55th
Annual SPE of Aime Fall Tech. Conf.
Dallas, 9/21-24/1980.

106. Brock, W. R.; Bryan, L. A. Summary

results of CO2 EOR field tests, 19721987 (SPE-18977). SPE Joint Rocky
Mountain
Reg./Low
Permeability
Reservoirs Symp. Denver, Colorado, 3/68/1989.
107. Martin, F. D.; Taber, J. J. Carbon
Dioxide Flooding (SPE-23564). J Petrol
Technology, V44, No 4, April 1992. pp.
396-400.
108. U.S. DOEs Carbon Sequestration
Program. Department of Energy / National
Energy
Technology
Laboratory.
DOE/NETL. February 2002.
109. Carbon Sequestration R&D. Department
of
Energy
(DOE).
July
2004.
http://www.fossil.energy.gov/programs/se
questration/index.html
110. Carbon
Sequestration
Regional
Partnership. Department of Energy
(DOE).
July
2004.
http://www.fossil.energy.gov/programs/se
questration/partnerships/index.html
111. El-Saleh, M. Analogy procedure for the
evaluation of CO2 flooding potential for
reservoirs in the Permian and Delaware
Basins (SPE-35391). SPE/DOE 10th
Symposium on IOR, Tulsa, OK. 21-24,
April 1996.
112. Blomberg, J. R. History and potential
future of Improved Oil Recovery in the
Appalachian Basin (SPE-51087). SPE
East Reg Conf. Pittsburgh, 11/9-11/1998.
113. Alvarado, V; Ranson, A; Hernandez, K;
Manrique, E; Matheus, J; Prosperi, N;
Liscano, T. Selection of EOR/IOR
(Enhanced Oil Recovery/Improved Oil
Recovery) opportunities based on machine
learning (SPE-78332). 13th SPE Europe
Petrol Conf. Aberdeen, Scotland, 10/2931/2002.
114. Manrique, E; Ranson, A; Alvarado, V.
Perspectives of CO2 Injection in
Venezuela. 24th Annual Workshop &
Symposium, IEA Collaborative Project on
EOR. Regina, Saskatchewan, Canada,
September 7-10, 2003.
115. Integration of the NETL Oil and Gas
modeling systems. Office of Fossil
Energy, NETL/DOE. June 2004.

116. Turta, A. T.; Singhal, A. K. Reservoir

engineering aspects of light-oil recovery
by air injection (SPE-72503). SPE
Reservoir Evaluation Eng V4, No 4, pp
336-344, Aug 2001.
117. William, E; Brigham and Louis Castanier.
In Situ Combustion Processes, Chapter
17. Reservoir Engineering Section, 2003.
118. Moore, G.; Mehta, R.; Ursenbach, M. Air
injection for Oil Recovery. J Can Petrol
Tech., V41, No 8, pp 16-19. Aug 2002.
119. Gilham, T. H.; Cerveny, B. W.; Turek, E.
D.; and Yanimaras, D. V. Keys to
creasing oil production from a light oil
reservoir via air injection (SPE-38848).
SPE Annual Conference, San Antonio.
October 5-9, 1997.
120. Glandt, C. A.; Pieterson, R.; Dombrowski,
A.; Balzarini, M. A. Coral creek field
study: A comprehensive assessment of the
potential of high-pressure air injection in a
mature waterflood project (SPE-52198).
SPE
Mid-Continent
Oper
Symp.
Oklahoma City, 3/28-31/1999.
121. Kuhlman, M. I. Expanded Uses of
Nitrogen, Oxygen and rich air for
increased production of both light oil and
heavy oil (SPE-86954). SPE Int. Therm.
Oper. & Heavy Oil Symp. & Western
Reg. Mtg.. Bakersfield, CA, 3/16-18/2004.
122. Clara, C.; Zelenko, V.; Schirmer, P.;
Wolter, T. Appraisal of the Horse Creek
Air injection project performance (SPE49519). 8th Abu Dhabi Nat Oil Co.
(ADNOC), SPE et al Abu Dhabi Int. Pet.
Conf. Abu Dhabi, UAE, 10/11-14/1998.
123. Miller, R. J. Kochs Experience with
deep In-Situ Combustion in Williston
Basin
Proceedings,
NIPER/DOE
Symposium on In-Situ Combustion. Tulsa,
April 21-22, 1994. Also US/DOE Report
NIPER/BDM-0086, January 1995.
124. Germain, P. and Geyelin, J. L. Air
injection into a light oil reservoir; the
Horse Creek Project (SPE-37782). SPE
Middle East Oil Show, Manama, Bahrain,
March 15-18, 1997.

125. Kumar, V. K.; Fassihi, M. R.;

Yannimaras, D. V. Case history and
appraisal of the medicine Ole Hills Unit
air injection project (SPE/DOE-27792).
9th SPE/DOE IOR Symp., Tulsa, 4/1720/1994.
126. Whiteman W. A.; Box M. R.; Craney D.
L. The Red River "B" Zone at Cedar Hills
Field, Bowman County, North Dakota. 8th
Int. Saskatchewan Geol. Soc. Et Al
Williston Basin Symp. Core Workshop
(10/21/1998). Pp. 23-40.
127. Sippel, M. A.; Hendricks, M. L.
Geological
and
engineering
characterizations of the upper Red River
Formation in the Southwest Williston
Basin. SPE Rocky Mountain Reg.
Mtg./Wyo. Geol Ass Field Conf. Casper,
WY, 5/18-21/1997.
128. Mugan, N. High Pressure Nitrogen
Injection for Miscible/Immiscible EOR
(SPE-81008). 8th SPE Latin American &
Caribbean Pet. Eng Conf., Port of Spain,
Trinidad, 4/27-30/2003.
129. Clancy, J. P.; Philcox, J. E.; Watt, J.;
Gilchrist, R.E. Cases and Economics for
Improved Oil and Gas Recovery using
Nitrogen. 36th Annual Cim. Petrol Soc &
Can Soc Petrol Geol Tech Mtg.
Edmonton, Can, 6/2-5/85. Preprints v1, pp
25-35. Pap No 85-36-2.
130. Flue gas to feed big miscible drive
O&GJ, V64, No 50. pp 52-53, 12/12/1966.
131. Bleakley, W. B. Block 31 miscible flood
remains strong. Petrol Eng. Int., V54, No
13, pp 84, 86, 90, 92, Nov 1982.
132. Looney, S. K.; Price, B. C.; Wilson, C. A.
Integrated nitrogen rejection facility
produces fuel and recovers NGL's Energy
Prog., V4, No 4, pp 214-221, Dec 1984.
133. Huang, W. W.; Bellamy, R. B.; Ohnimus,
S. W. A Study of Nitrogen Injection for
Increased Recovery from a Rich
Retrograde Gas/Volatile Oil Reservoir
(SPE-14059). SPE Petrol. Eng. Int. Mtg.
Beijing, China, 3/17-20/1986.

134. Clancy, J. P.; Cheng, L.; Bywater, D. R.;

Gilchrist, R. E. Analysis of NitrogenInjection projects to develop screening
guides and offshore design criteria (SPE11902). SPE of Aime offshore Europe
Conf. Aberdeen, 9/6-9/1983.
135. EOR Field Report : Update. Enhanced
Oil Recovery Field Rep., V17, No 1,
1992.
136. Wash, R. EOR-Nitrogen Large Fractures,
Water Drive Make Andector Field a Prime
Target. Drill Bit V32, No 3, pp 101.
March 1982.
137. Lawrence, J. J.; Maer, N. K.; Stern, D.;
Corwin, L. W.; Idol W. K. Jay Nitrogen
Tertiary Recovery Study: Managing a
Mature Field (SPE-78527). 10th SPE Abu
Dhabi Int. Petrol. Conf. (ADIPEC), Abu
Dhabi, UAE, 10/13-16/2002.
138. Corwin, L. W.; Broomhall, R. W.;
Saidikowski, R. M.; Wooten, J. N.
Stylolites impact the miscible nitrogen
flood in a mature carbonate oil field
(SPE-37780). 10th SPE Middle East Oil
Show Conf. Manama, Bahrain, 3/1518/1997.
139. Christian, L. D.; Shirer, J. A.; Kimble, E.
L.; Blackwell, R. J. Planning a tertiary oil
recovery project for Jay-Little Escambia
Creek fields unit (SPE-9805). 2nd Joint
SPE/DOE EOR Symp (Tulsa, 4/5-8/1981).
140. Enhanced Oil Recovery Field Report:
Update. EOR Field Rep. V 17, No. 1,
1992.
141. Levine, S; Sigmon, R.; Douglas, S. Yates
Field - Super Giant of the Permian Basin
Houston Geol. Soc. Bull V45, No 3, pp
39-45, 47-49,51, Nov 2002.
142. Why dissolve the MKM partnership?
Kindermorgan Flashnews, July 2003.
www.kindermorgan.com.
143. Marathon oil transaction complete.
Kindermorgan Flashnews, December
2003. www.kindermorgan.com
144. Tompkins, M. W.; Ebbs, D. J.; Thomas, L.
K.; Dixon, T. N. Chatom gas condensate
cycling
project
(SPE-17353).
6th
SPE/DOE EOR Symp (Tulsa, 4/17-20/88).

145. Pickard, C. F. Twenty Years of

production from an impact structure, Red
Wing Creek Field, McKenzie County,
North Dakota. Annual AAPG-SEPMEMD-DPA-DEG Conv., Denver, 6/1215/1994. Pap. Abstract, p 234.
146. Branna, G.; Whitington, H. M.; Enriched
gas miscible flooding--A case history of
the Levelland Unit secondary miscible
project (SPE-5826). SPE of Aime MidContinent Sect IOR Symp., 1976.
147. Rowe, H. G.; York, S. D.; Ader, J. C.
Slaughter Estate Unit tertiary pilot
performance (SPE-9796). 2nd Joint SPE
EOR Symp. Tulsa, 4/5-8/1981.
148. Holloway, H. D.; Fitch, R. A.
Performance of a miscible flood with
alternate gas-water displacement. SPE626. JPT. 1964.
149. Cone, C. The Case History of the
University Block 9 (Wolfcamp) Field--a
Gas-Water Injection Secondary Recovery
Project (SPE-2837). SPE of AIME
Practical Aspects Improved Recovery Tec.
Mtg., 1970.
150. Heck, T.J. Dolphin Field Overview,
Divide County, N.D. Oil Gas J. V86, No
41, pp 79-81, 10/10/88, 1988.
151. Stright, D. H. Jr.; Fallin W. S. Dolphin
Field: A successful miscible gas flood in a
small volatile oil reservoir (SPE-24333).
SPE Rocky Mountain Regional Meeting.
Casper, Wyo., May 1992.
152. Inden, R. A.; Burke, R. B. Fault control
on late stage diagenetic creation and
enhancement
of
reservoirs.
7th
Saskatchewan Geol Soc at Williston Basin
Int Symp. Billings, MT, 7/23-25/1995.
153. Perez-Perez, A; Ovalles, C; Manrique, E;
Gamboa,
M.
Benchmarking
of
steamflood field projects in light/medium
crude oils (SPE-72137). SPE Asia Pacific
Impr Oil Recovery Conf. (APIORC 2001).
Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, 10/8-9/2001.
154. Pryor J. A., Volek C. W. Steam
Distillation Drive Brea Field,
California (SPE-3441). 46th Annual SPE
of AIME, Fall Meeting 1971.

155. Wheaton L. D. Measurement of steam

injection tubing heat losses using
pressure/temperature survey data (SPE21524). SPE Thermal Operation Int.
Symposium, Bakersfield, California, 1991.
156. Demiralin A. S.; Hurley N. F.; Oesleby T.
W. Karst Breccias in the Madison
Limestone (Mississippian), Garland Field,
Wyoming. SEPM Core Workshop No.
18, New Orleans, 1993. pp: 101-118.
157. Dehghani K., Ehrlich R. Evaluation of
steam injection process in light oil
reservoirs (SPE-49016). SPE Annual
Tech. Conference, New Orleans, 1998.
158. Snell J. S., Close A. D. Yates Field
Steam Pilot Applies Latest Seismic and
Logging Monitoring Techniques (SPE56791). SPE Annual Tech. Conference,
Houston, 1999.
159. Wen Gao, H. Mobility Control in Oil
Recovery by Chemical Flooding. State of
the Art Review. National Institute for
Petroleum and Energy Research (Report
NIPER-146), January 1987.
160. Weiss, W. W. Performance Review of a
Large-Scale Polymer Flood (SPE-24145)
Presented at the SPE/DOE 8th Symposium
on EOR. Tulsa, OK. April 1992.
161. Needham, R., Doe, P. H., (SPE-17140)
Polymer Flooding Review. Journal of
Petroleum Technology. December 1987.
162. Manning R. K., Pope G. A., Lake L. W.,
Paul G. W., Wesson T. C. A Technical
Survey of Polymer Flooding Projects.
Department
of
Energy,
Report
DOE/BC/10327-19, September 1983. 329
p.
163. Borchardt J. K. Chemicals Used in OilField Operations. Oil-Field Chemistry:
Enhanced Recovery and Production
Stimulation (195TH American Chemical
Soc. Nat. Mtg. Symp., Toronto, Canada,
June 1988.
164. Hochanadel, S. M.; Lunceford, M. L.;
Farmer, C. W. Comparison of 31
Minnelusa polymer floods with 24
Minnelusa waterfloods (SPE-20234). 7th
SPE/DOE Symposium on EOR , Tulsa,
OK, 1990.

165. Hovendick, M. D. Development and

Results of the Hale-Mable Leases CoOperative Polymer EOR Injection Project,
Vacuum (Grayburg-San Andres) Field,
Lea County, New Mexico (SPE-16722).
62nd SPE Annual Technical Conference
and Exhibition, Dallas, TX. September
1987.
166. Tyler N.; Bebout D. G.; Garrett C. M. Jr.;
Guevara E. H.; Hocott C. R.; Holtz M. H.;
Hovorka S. D.; Kerans C.; Lucia F. J.
Integrated characterization of Permian
Basin Reservoirs, University Lands, West
Texas: Targeting the Remaining Resource
for Advanced Oil Recovery. Texas
Bureau Econ. Geol., Report No. 203,
1991.
167. Heck J. B. A Discussion of Cities Service
Oil Companys Cummins C D + W. San
Andres Waterflood. 15th Annual SW
Petroleum Short Course, 4/18-19/1968.
168. Lemen, M. A., Burlas, M. C., Roe, L. M.
Water flood Pattern Realignment at the
McElroy Field: Section 205 Case History
(SPE-20120). 1990 Permian Basin Oil and
Gas Recovery Conference, Midland, TX.
March 1990.
169. Brady T. Interdisciplinary Waterflood
Optimization and Reservoir Management
Salt Creek Field Unit, Kent County,
Texas. West Texas Geol. Soc. Permian
Basin Plays Tomorrows Technology
Today Symp., TX, 10/31/91-11/1/91),
1991.
170. Weiss, W. W., Baldwin, R. W. Planning
and Implementing a Large-Scale Polymer
Flood (SPE-12637) Journal of Petroleum
Technology. 1985.
171. Adams, W. T., Schievelbein, V. H.
Surfactant
Flooding
Carbonate
Reservoirs SPERE V2, No 4, PP 619626, Nov. 1987.
172. Gill D. Byron field Polymer Waterflood
will achieve two important firsts Enhanced
Oil Recovery. Western Oil Reporter V
39, No 12, pp 131-133, Sept. 1982.

173. Sengul M. M.; Skinner T. K.; Kirchner W.

D.; Gilman J. R. Simulation of Polymer
Flood with Propagating Hydraulic
Fracture (SPE-13125). 59th Annual SPE
of AIME Tech. Conf. (Houston, TX, 9/1619/1984).
174. DeHekker, T. G., Bowzer, R. V.,
Coleman, R.V., Bartos, W. B. A Progress
Report
on
Polymer-Augmented
Waterflooding in Wyomings North
Oregon Basin and Byron Fields (SPE14953). SPE 5th Symposium on EOR.
Tulsa, OK. April, 1986.
175. Kalpakci, B., Arf, T.G., Barker, J.W.,
Krupa, A.S., Morgan, J.C., Neira, B.P.
The Low-Tension Polymer Flood
Approach to Cost-Effective Chemical
EOR (SPE-20220). 7th SPE/DOE
Symposium on EOR. Tulsa, OK. April
1990.
176. Wyatt, K., Pitts, M., and Surkalo, H.
Mature
Waterfloods
Renew
Oil
Production
by
Alkaline-SurfactantPolymer Flooding (SPE-78711). SPE
Eastern Regional Meeting. Lexinton, KY.
October 2002.
177. Lowry, P.H., Ferrell, H.H., Dauben, D.L.
A Review and Statistical Analysis of
Micellar-Polymer Field Test Data
National Petroleum Technology Office.
Report No. DOE/BC/10830-4, U.S.
Department of Energy. Tulsa, OK.
November 1986.
178. Schuler, P.J., Lerner, R.M., and Kuehne,
D.L.
Improving Chemical Flood
Efficiency
with
Micellar/Alkaline/Polymer
Processes
(SPE-14934). Presented at the SPE/DOE
5th Symposium on EOR. Tulsa, OK. April
1986.
179. Llave, F.M., French, T.R., Lorenz, P.B.
Evaluation of mixed Surfactants for
Improved Chemical Flooding, National
Institute for Petroleum and Energy
Research, Report No. NIPER-631.
February 1993.

180. Zubari H. K.; Sivakumar V. C. B. Single

Well Tests to Determine the Efficiency of
Alkaline-Surfactant Injection in a Highly
Oil-Wet Limestone Reservoir (SPE81464). 13th SPE Middle East Oil Show &
Conference (Bahrain, 5-8 April 2003).
181. Manrique, E., Anselmi, L., Romero, C.,
Chacon, L. Alkali/Surfactant/Polymer at
VLA 6/9/21 Field in Maracaibo Lake:
Experimental Results and Pilot Project
Design (SPE-59363). 2000 SPE/DOE
Improved Oil Recovery Symposium held
in Tulsa, OK, April 2000.
182. Olsen, D. K., Hicks, M. D., Hurd B.G.,
Sinnokrot, A.A., Sweigart, C. N. Design
of a Novel Flooding System for an OilWet Central Texas Carbonate Reservoir
(SPE-20224). 7th SPE/DOE Symposium
on EOR. Tulsa, OK. 22-25 April 1990.
183. De Bons F. E., Braun R. W. Ledoux W. A.
A Guide to Chemical Oil Recovery for
the Independent Operator (SPE-89382).
2004 SPE/DOE 14th Symposium on IOR,
Tulsa, 17-21 April 2004.
184. Miller B. J., Pitts M. J., Dowling P.,
Wilson D. Single Well AlkalineSurfactant Injectivity Improvement Test in
the Big Sinking Field (SPE-89384). 2004
SPE/DOE 14th Symposium on IOR, Tulsa,
17-21 April 2004.
185. Pitts M. J., Wyatt K., Surkalo H. Field
Chemical Flood Performance Comparison
with
Laboratory
Displacement
in
Reservoir Core (SPE-89385). 2004
SPE/DOE 14th Symposium on IOR, Tulsa,
17-21 April 2004.
186. John A., Han C., Delshad M., Pope G. A.,
Sepehrnoori A New Generation
Chemical Flooding Simulator (SPE89436). 2004 SPE/DOE 14th Symposium
on IOR, Tulsa, 17-21 April 2004.
187. Felber B. J. Selected U.S. Department of
Energy EOR Technology Applications
(SPE-89452). 2004 SPE/DOE 14th
Symposium on IOR, Tulsa, 17-21 April
2004.

188. Weiss W. W., Xie X., Weiss J.,

Subramanium V., Taylor A., Edens F.
Artificial Intelligence Used to Evaluate
23
Single-Well
Surfactant
Soak
Treatments
(SPE-89457).
2004
SPE/DOE 14th Symposium on IOR, Tulsa,
17-21 April 2004.
189. Iglauer S., Wu Y., Shuler P. J., Blanco M.,
Tang Y., Goddard III W. A. Alkyl
Polyglycoside Surfactants for Improved
Oil Recovery (SPE-89472). 2004
SPE/DOE 14th Symposium on IOR, Tulsa,
17-21 April 2004.
190. Mauggalya S., McInerney M J., Knapp R.
M., Nagle D. P., Folmsbee M. J.
Development of Bio-Surfactant Based
Enhanced Oil Recovery Procedure (SPE89473). 2004 SPE/DOE 14th Symposium
on IOR, Tulsa, 17-21 April 2004.
191. Thomas, M. M., Clouse, J. A., Longo, J.
M. Adsorption of organic compounds on
carbonate minerals. 1. Model compounds
and
their
influence
on
mineral
wettability. Chemical Geology, 109
(1993): 201-213.
192. Thomas, M. M., Clouse, J. A., Longo, J.
M. Adsorption of organic compounds on
carbonate minerals. 3. Influence on
dissolution rates. Chemical Geology 109
(1993): 227-237.
193. Yang, H. D., and Wadleigh, E. E. Dilute
Surfactant IOR-Design Improvement for
Massive,
Fractured
Carbonate
Applications (SPE-59009). 2000 SPE
International Petroleum Conference and
Exhibition in Mexico, Villahermosa,
February 2000.
194. Chen, H. L., Lucas, L. R., Nogaret, L. A.
D., Yang, H. D., Kenyon, D. E.
Laboratory Monitoring of Surfactant
Imbibition
Using
Computerized
Tomography (SPE-69197). SPERE,
February 2001, pp: 16-25.
195. Campanella J. D., Wadleigh E. E., Gilman
J. R. Flow Characterization Critical for
Efficiency of Field Operations and IOR
(SPE-58996). 2000 SPE International
Petroleum Conference and Exhibition in
Mexico, Villahermosa, February 2000.

196. Chen, H.L., Lucas, L.R., Nogaret, L.A.D.,

Yang, H.D., Kenyon, D.E. Laboratory
Monitoring of Surfactant Imbibition Using
Computerized
Tomography
(SPE59006). 2000 SPE International Petroleum
Conference and Exhibition in Mexico,
Villahermosa, February 2000.
197. French, T. R., Josephson, C. B., Evans, D.
B. The Effect of Alkaline Additives on
the Performance of Surfactant Systems
Designed to Recover Light Crude Oils.
National Institute for Petroleum and
Energy Research, Report No. NIPER-506,
Feb. 1991.
198. Demin W.; Lanshui Z.; Jiecheng C.;
Junzheng W. Actual Field Data Show
that Production Costs of Polymer Flooding
can be Lower than Water Flooding (SPE84849). SPE Asia Pacific Int. IOR Conf.
Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, 10/20-21/2003.
199. Standnes D. C.; Austad T. Nontoxic
Low-cost
Amines
as
Wettability
Alteration Chemicals in Carbonates. J.
Petroleum Sci. and Eng. (2003), 39, pp.
431-446.
200. Strand S.; Standnes D. C.; Austad T.
Spontaneous Imbibition of Aqueous
Surfactant Solutions into Neutral to oilwet carbonate cores: Effects of Brine
Salinity and Composition. Energy and
Fuels (2003) 17, pp. 1133-1144.
201. Standnes D. C.; Austad T. Wettability
alteration in carbonates: Interaction
between
cationic-surfactant
and
carboxylates as a key factor in wettability
alteration from oil-wet to water-wet
conditions. Colloids and Surfaces A:
Physicochemical Engineering Aspects
(2003), 216, pp. 243-259.
202. Standnes D. C.; Austad T. Wettability
alteration in carbonates: Low-cost
ammonium surfactants based on bioderivatives from the coconut palm as
active chemicals to change the wettability
from oil-wet to water-wet conditions.
Colloids and Surfaces A: Physicochemical
Engineering Aspects (2003), 218, pp. 161173.

203. DOE Stripper Well Consortium (SWC):

Improving Injectivity in Low Permeability
Reservoirs, Big Sinking Field. Net. News,
PTTC. V8, No. 2, 2nd Q/June 2002. p. 10
(http://www.pttc.org/tech_sum/ts_v82_27.
htm).
204. Miller B. J.; Pitts M. J.; Dowling P.;
Wilson D. Single Well AlkalineSurfactant Injectivity Improvement Test in
The Big Sinking Field (SPE-89384).
2004 SPE/DOE 14th Symposium on IOR,
Tulsa, 17-21 April 2004.